To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

[HenryTudor1485]

He’s undergone a bit of a reappraisal recently but I’m not having it. He was a wrong un.

He clearly had his nephews killed. He had motive, means and opportunity. The dates when they “disappeared” all add up.

He done the crime. He never did the time (unless you consider being defeated in battle and being hacked to death “time”).

Richard had the greatest motive - survival. His career and probably his life were finished once his nephew was on the throne. He either left his sister jn laws’s male relatives alive - too dangerous - or he removed them and no doubt incurred the hostility of his nephew in doing so. Leaving his nephews alive meant his throne was never secure. Unfortunately, removing them lost him significant support and fatally weakened his reign. Richard opted for the brutal solution - reflective of his military career. Politically he couldn’t win either way. Even if he had defeated Tudor he would probably never have enjoyed the throne in peace.

I loved that book as a teenager! I must reread it.

And I agree re Henry VII

@Maray1967 Being the king’s uncle would be a v. powerful position, but presumably it wasn’t enough for Richard, he wanted to be king himself.

It’s interesting, because he was a powerful magnate when his brother was on the throne and he could’ve remained so if he’d supported his nephews.

Hmmm.... maybe. But the Woodvilles had charge of the boys and were pushing for the Council (including them) to run the country rather than EIV's fairly last minute desire for Richard to be the Lord Protector, and it was EV's maternal uncle who had largely been raising him.

Richard would certainly not have been in a comfortably powerful position in a minority reign - see the Seymour brothers falling out with each other (and other nobles) during the minority of HVIII's son, Edward VI.

You really need to factor in the entire backstory to the age - including the sensitivities around usurpers (real or perceived), and then apply Occams razor.

At which point it makes very little sense for anyone else to have done it.

Richard was a medieval King. Murder and intrigue were embedded deep into the fabric of European power politics. Being responsible (I doubt he was anywhere near the actual deed) for the murder and disappearance of potential claimants to the throne was part and parcel of that. It also provided a little bit of a trip wire for anyone plotting against him ....and since Josephine Tey is mentioned, can anyone recall the plot twist of Brat Farrar 😀

Maybe, but my suspicion is he felt he had no option. He thought his options were to grab the throne for himself or be the one murderered in the Tower. Somehow the lengths he had to go to to remain 'regent' precluded him safely stepping away and handing the crown on, or maybe another king wouldn't give him the protection he needed.

That's based on nothing more than my own personal bias and lack of ambition - I'd always take the safe comfortable life over the grand prize with a ton of risk and I assume everyone else would too.

@SheilaFentiman True, he wasn’t as safe as when his brother was on the throne.

Of course, all would’ve changed anyway when Henry VII made his bid for the throne. I think he would def. have tried during Edward V’s minority, it would be the perfect opportunity.

Honestly, I think that's v hard to say. If EV was on the throne, then Henry Tudor pledging to marry EofY to unite the factions wouldn't have been possible, and that would have reduced his support vs what happened in 1485, IMO.

I think there's a good chance he would never have bid for the throne.

These are both excellent examples of things that the Daughter of Time is wrong about. I absolutely adore the novel and it led me to a history degree, via the Ricard III Society, but I think the history as we know it now supports Richard as responsible for the deaths. Much of the contents of a Daughter of Time don't stand up, eg the claim that there are no contemporary references to the disappearance of the princes.

Sorry to go back to this but these are totally different scenarios. The Romanov family were Philips cousins, a generation removed. He would have grown up around family members who knew and loved them. He obviously would want to facilitate their identification and burial.

I assume any DNA testing of the bones in the Tower would need to be checked against the same source that Richard's bones were, given there is no link between the princes and the current royal family. All three were descended from Cicely Neville.

While she did amazingly to lead to Richard's body, I think that sounds very unlikely. History is all about finding new narratives so long as they are substantiated by sources. I can't remember where I read it at the time of her last documentary/evidence reveal but the documents she talked about are not new knowledge to medieval historians; she is putting a new and controversial spin on them. If there's a solid argument to be made, I think historians would engage with it very willingly!

There isn't a history establishment that says what we now think of as the story is set in stone and woe betide anyone who questions it. Otherwise I think thousands of active academics can down their tools and find a new job.

@ItisIbeserk I think to be fair to Tey, she did put in at least one contemporary rumour, but then attributed it to Morton and said it was therefore discredited.

AFAIK, no one was buying clothes or food for the Lord Bastards after summer 1483 - so to quote Tey, if history is in account books and not accounts, there isn't the evidence that the boys existed after September 1483 or so.

I assume any DNA testing of the bones in the Tower would need to be checked against the same source that Richard's bones were, given there is no link between the princes and the current royal family. All three were descended from Cicely Neville.

I think someone did a similar mDNA exercise for the Princes, before RIII's body was found, but yes, RIII would presumably be a good source.

Quote a few bets were won when it turned out Anastasia (who screamed in vain) really did perish in 1918.

I'm sure you're right! I haven't re-read for a long time, although I have frequently seen that assertion made for the book, including obviously on this thread.

I read upthread that you have had the same journey as me, and quite a few other posters. I don't think any of us would claim that the DoT isn't a brilliant creation.

Did it end up with the same Canadian I wonder, or were there Jacquetta relatives they looked at? I'd forgotten that now they could compare to Richard himself!

Slight derail but what is the consensus re Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville? Obviously in Henry’s interest to be valid and in Richard’s for it to be invalid.

I haven’t said Richard finds his nephews slain. That’s one of the big questions I think.

I am not sure - because the boys were cicely’s descendants via a male, mDNA might not have worked, it might have to be the mDNA down a Woodville line.

Yes, very similar journeys re Tey 😀

Oh yes.

Lucky I ended up with history and not biology.

I always find it fascinating that the Woodvilles are regarded as upstarts because of their father but their mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg was worthy enough to marry the Duke of Bedford, Henry VI uncle.

Because of Treason. They were acting against the wishes of their late King
The Woodvilles were not regarded highly, they were not of U.K. Noble birth. They were ruthless in attempts to gain power but had a bigger hill to climb than most.

IMO, evidence too scanty to say, not least cos pre contracts were made and dissolved all the time. John Ashdown-Hill also wrote a book about Eleanor butler if you fancy that 😀

However, legally, they were both justified, I think, because parliament passed titulus regius and then repealed it.

My understanding is that a Parliamentary act at the time overruled any given opinion. Which is why Henry VIII’s act of succession gave the throne to Mary then Elizabeth even though he never declared either of them legitimate and Edward VI tried to shoehorn Lady Jane Grey in - who was certainly legitimate but was not next in like according to parliament.

Because of Treason. They were acting against the wishes of their late King

It isnt treason to act against the wishes of a dead king; who would the crime be against?

Did they have nefarious intent with respect to Richard? Probably. But the act of bringing the boy king to London wasn’t treasonous, even if Edward IV may have preferred Richard to do it.

Sorry, I meant to quote @NewAgeNewMe in the secret marriage post, but accidentally quoted @ItisIbeserk again!