To think Richard III clearly murdered the princes in the tower?

[Ppejfhfhrhhfhf]

It seems quite clear to me that Richard III betrayed his nephews, murdered them and usurped their crown.

Whenever I see discussions about it on social media or wherever, people always come on and try to claim he’s a misrepresented soul who’d never have done that. If you’re someone who believes him innocent, what do you think happened to the princes?

Would also be very interested if anyone knowledgeable knows what contemporary sources were saying at the time. What did the public think had happened to their King (Edward V)?

Delighted to have been reminded of Philippa Langley and that hilariously divided documentary (was it Ch 4?) about the discovery of RIII's grave -- you could see they have begun to film it as 'Here is a story about an obsessed loon we are playing for historically-inflected laughs' and then, unexpectedly, the obsessed loon turned out to be onto something so the entire second part took an entirely different and more respectful tone, though, awkwardly, PL continued to be an obsessed loon. The scene where she's looking at the reconstructed skeleton with the air of someone being shown their boyfriend's corpse never fails to crack me up.

(Also, I'm clearly the only person in the world who didn't much care for The Daughter of Time -- bored, bedbound detective makes other people bring him documents...?)

Of course he did. He took the crown from his nephews, declared them illegitimate and locked them in the tower, yet some people think he had enough of a conscience not to order their murder in a time when kin killed kin? He probably didn't kill them with his own hand but on his orders.

If he had let them live/smuggled them to France they would have returned as adults (with an army) to claim the crown. Richard III wasn't going to risk that.

Richard III seems to have a weird fan club who want to paint him as a saint, but all the monarchs in those days were power mad and didn't think twice about removing any threat. It is widely believed Edward VI had Henry VI murdered only a few years earlier to take the throne, so it was hardly unheard of.

This thread took off! Haven't read it all but can anyone recommend a well researched history of Richard the III? I have only read popular histories. TIA.

i really dislike the insistence that the Royal family are German because I think the rationale behind it is xenophobic at best.

The late Queen Elizabeth was born in London to parents who were also born in London. You have to go back to Victoria’s mother to find someone in the line of succession who was born outside of Great Britain. That would be (I think) King Charles 3x great grandmother, born in the 18th century. Just how many generations does any family have to be born in the UK before we’ll consider them British? Does the counter reset every time someone marries someone foreign?

I’m not particularly a royalist, but am thinking of what this line of thinking says to all citizens of the UK, that if even the royal family can be accused of not being British, what does that say to any of us that have foreign ancestors?

Ive also always thought Margaret Beaufort was nailed on for it

@PadstowGirl blimey, in that case I'd be very careful around your MIL-if she is anything like her relative you could meet a sticky end

This is such a fascinating thread!

If anyone is interested the Daughter of Time is on the Kindle Store for 75p. I’ve just downloaded it to add to my holiday reading.

No, because she was from the Beaufort line, John of Gaunt's and Katherine Swynford's bastards, who were specifically banned from inheriting the throne when they were legitimised (by Richard II iirc). On the other she was descended from Katherine de Valois and Owen Tudor, who may or may not have been married. Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest.

The current lot are descended from George I, son of the Electress Sophia, who was daughter of James I's daughter Elizabeth (the "Winter Queen"). Parliament were desperate to find a Protestant successor to Queen Anne.

Queen Victoria grew up bilingual (or multilingual, I'm sure she was being taught French as well) not speaking solely German. Her mother had her eye on Victoria inheriting the throne from very early on, and would hardly have had a future queen regnant raised with no English. The days of the monarch not speaking English were in George I's reign, not after.

I agree.

No bodies, no bones (the ones found are too far down to be contemporary to Plantagenet/Tudor road level) and, in fact, plenty of evidence on the continent that the princes' relatives were helping to fund an army to bring the eldest boy back to England and the throne.

She has been extremely unfairly made out to be obsessed. She is passionate and dedicated. I have met her and spoken to her, and her research is thorough and wide-reaching - and inspires many amateur historians. If she was Phillip Langley we would never have this total misogynist bollocks about "oh ho ho she fancies Richard III"

I think Edward IV trusted Richard because he had absolutely no reason not to trust him. Edward was betrayed by several of his once close allies during his lifetime, most notably Warwick the Kingmaker who had helped him onto the throne, and his own brother George, Duke of Clarence, but Richard was always completely loyal to him.

Richard also made most sense as Lord Protector, as he was a known quantity and a son of the House of York, which was important against the backdrop of the Wars of the Roses.

I don’t think anyone has really mentioned the Woodville family, Edward IV’s Queen and her family, but their actions in the wake of Edward’s death almost certainly had an impact on how things played out. They wanted Edward V in their control, which would have been unpopular and potentially destabilising.

If the Bishop’s revelation about Edward IV’s bigamy was a stitch up, I don’t think it was a power grab for the sake of personal gain and power for power’s sake. I think it was in recognition of the fact that a child monarch could be destabilising at the best of times and certainly at a time when peace was fragile and transient. Richard III’s entire life played out against the backdrop of the Cousins’ War. His father and eldest brother lost their lives to it when he was a young boy, he had to fight constantly to keep his brother Edward on the throne, his mentor Warwick and his brother George lost their lives to it to. When Edward IV died there had been a fragile peace for a few years and it would hardly be surprising if Richard and the other lords & councillors took steps to preserve that. He didn’t take the crown by force, it was with the acquiescence, and by some accounts at the request of, the lords of realm. I think they thought putting him on the throne was the best chance of stability 🤷🏻‍♀️

I also think there are things that seem ominous in hindsight but which were perfectly normal at the time. For example, the boys being taken to the Tower. In modern times, to us, that means only one thing. But in the 15th century the Tower of London was not a prison/place of execution, it was a royal palace, and it was tradition for the monarch to reside there prior to being crowned. That’s why Edward V was taken there in the first place, on the face of it there was nothing sinister about that at the time.

I agree. People go on about how his reputation was tarnished by Tudor propaganda but the pendulum has now swung so far the other way that his supporters act like he was a saint.

I think he had them killed to secure his own power in the same way as Henry IV killed Richard II and Edward IV killed Henry VI.

There are far too many mental gymnastics involved for other theories to be plausible.

More likely Margaret Beaufort.

This started with the statement that brothers of a monarch were above daughters in the line of succession. You cannot name a single example of the brother of a monarch ascending the throne above a daughter of a monarch, because there aren’t any examples, because that is not how primogeniture works.

Its half the Yorkist argument in the wars of the Roses as the Lancastrians were descended from john of Gaunt DUke of Lancaster the third son of Edward III whereas the Yorkists were descended both from the Duke of York (4th son) in the patrilineal line and the Duke of Clarence (2nd son) in the matrilineal line. The Lancastrian argument was that the Clarence line was irrelevant as it passed through 2 women - Philippa Plantagenet and Anne Mortimer. However the argument is a bit confused as Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II so could probably claim to be king by conquest.

Thank you. I couldn't quite remember if Richard was surprised at the Bishops revelations or not.

To answer a pp above I expect the Bishop feared for his life to reveal his information when Edward was still king. Edwards marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was rather unorthodox, he married her secretly. It is quite probable that he had a prior betrothal as this was very common in those days.

Actually using the law and or Parliament to sort out the line of succession isn't that unusual

William I appointed his second son William Rufus as the heir to the English throne (didn't go down well with his oldest son Robert who "only" got Normandy)

Then the whole Matilda Stephen Henry II debacle.

A cartel of Lords invited the Dauphin over to usurp John and then had to backtrack very quickly to kick him out on John's death in order to have Henry III instead.

Isabella and Mortimer then depose Edward II to rule through a regency for Edward III - who then gets rid of Mortimer and shuts his mother up at Windsor before sending her to Norfolk for the rest of her life.

(Just for the fun of an additional complication)Edward III decides he has a better legal claim to the throne of France (via his mother) than the heir favoured by the French despite the fact French law is quite clear that no one inherits through a female line.)

RIchard II agrees to legitimise the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt's 3rd marriage provided they have no claim to the throne.

Henry IV deposes Richard II which ends up with the Wars of the Roses as Lancaster and York each think they have the better claim.

Edward IV deposes Henry VI

Edward supported by Richard then uses the law to debar the children of the middle brother George from claiming the throne as George is a traitor. (Otherwise when the children of Edward IV are declared illegitimate the heirs would have been Edward Earl of Warwick (whom Henry VII executed) and Margaret Plantagenet (whom Henry VIII executed for treason as an elderly women)

Richard III uses the law to declare his nephews and nieces illegimate to take the throne.

Henry VII claims to be both the Lancastrian heir via his mother despite the Beauforts not being legally allowed to inherit and by right of conquest.

Henry VII legitimises the York children again

Henry VIII wills the crown to his 3 children in birth order despite the girls being illegitimate and then skips over the children of his elder sister to go straight to the children of his younger sister Mary.

Edward VI tries to cut out his sisters. The throne should then have gone to Frances Brandon but she declines it in favour of her daughter Jane Grey. Mary I raises an army and takes the throne.

ELizabeth fights a constant rearguard action against those (Catholics) who argue she is illegitimate and want to put Mary Queen of Scots on the throne. She also keeps the other 2 Grey sisters at court, declares Catherine Grey's marriage to be invalid so her sons were illegitimate. On her death she appoints James I as King despite the fact that per her fathers will (which is what she based her claim to the throne on) the next heirs were the Stanley family (although they may have shot themselves in the foot as Ferdinando was remarkably reticent about what his religious affiliations were).

Then we have the Parliamentary deposition of Charles I, the restoration of CHarles II, the deposition of James II, the skipping over of the Catholic James III in favour of Mary and the crowning of her husband despite the fact he had no claim to the throne (except possibly via conquest) and then the search for a Protestant heir to Anne which led to George I (via his mother and grandmother)

Even when we get to Queen VIctoria - she was able to take the throne of Enland but the Electorate of Hanover went to her uncle as a woman couldn't have that one.

Thank goodness we have now got rid of the boys first messing around (although I'd love to see Princess Anne outranking her revolting middle brother......)

I really dislike the insistence that the Royal family are German because I think the rationale behind it is xenophobic at best.

I agree. The late Queen and her father both served this country in war against Germany. Her uncle the Duke of Kent died on active service with the RAF. Her grandfather George V also served in the Royal Navy. Prince Louis of Battenberg (Prince Philip's grandfather) had served in the Royal Navy since he was fourteen and reached the highest position possible for a serving officer, but he was forced to resign in 1914 due to anti-German feeling.

If anyone suggested on a Mumsnet thread that, for example, Sadiq Khan or Diane Abbott or Humza Yousaf weren't really British, there would be absolute outrage and howls of 'racism'.

The Royal family have significant German heritage despite being British.

I am British. I also have German heritage.

Sadiq Khan, Diane Abbott and Humza Yousef are British but their heritage, like mine, is not so.

Agree that you should read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey which lays out the factual evidence framed within a fictional (modern person investigating) narrative.

Iirc the conclusions were:

Richard III didn't have any motive to kill them. During his reign they had been declared bastards and excluded from the secession so he didn't need them dead.

There is no evidence that they were actually dead by the time Henry VII took thd throne after Richard's death. One if the things Henry VII did quite soon after taking the throne was to put out a general proclamation about how terrible Richard III had been, and the death of the princes is not even mentioned in that proclamation. If they had been dead it would have been included.

There is definitely evidence of Henry VII getting rid of all other possible claimants to the throne within his first few months as king, his claim was very shakey. And he needed to set aside the claim that Edward IV's marriage was invalid because he was securing his claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth of York, the elder sister of the princes in the tower. So Henry VII needed the princes dead, but Richard III didn't.

If anyone suggested on a Mumsnet thread that, for example, Sadiq Khan or Diane Abbott or Humza Yousaf weren't really British, there would be absolute outrage and howls of 'racism'.

well, exactly, and those howls would be entirely justified. And that goes to the core of my concern - all the while the Royal family is derided as German, even light heartedly and in jest, it sends out a message to anyone whose immigration heritage is more recent that they will never really be British .

I may be slightly biased because my own birth surname is in its form because a paternal ancestor anglicised it. The reason was xenophobia over a hundred years ago, to the point his own father was deported for being of the “wrong” nationality in WW1.

anyway, sorry for the diversion. As someone with otherwise Lancastrian roots, I’ve always viewed Richard of York with a bit of a side eye, but I do think he was fitted up.

The Royal family have significant German heritage despite being British

They also have significant Scottish and Danish heritage, and heritage of other nations, but no-one ever mentions that. It's always 'They're German'. Why is that?

Richard needed them dead because they’d have grown into men who’d have come to reclaim the throne, surely?