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”).

Have any of you read Sunne in Splendour by Sharon penman? This novel influenced my thoughts (rightly or wrongly) on what may have happened.

Was discussing this topic only today with a friend. He went to Leicester where there is a Richard III museum, including a recreation of The Carpark Hole.
Excellent day out, he said. His memory is fresher than mine and he believes the current number one suspect is Henry Tudor.

It was Trump.

They can’t really. A match would rule them in. But no match wouldn't rule them out.

Every theory is all maybes though tbf. I enjoyed the deciphering of the intel from Ireland

How? Their bodies would have been found. Or of, by some miracle, their bodies were removed from a heavily guarded fortress, he’d know they weren’t in missing.

If it was him I think it would have been instigated by Margaret Beaufort. She was devoted to her only son and obsessed with power.

I haven’t said I thought they were killed. Is this for someone else ?

Yes, which doesn’t suggest lifelong loyalty to Richard, does it?

Yes, we covered my brain fog moment above! I did initially suggest their maternal grandmother, to do me a little credit I guess.

ETA my turn to quote the wrong post - it was the one above I meant to reply to.

I didn’t say it did. It had nothing to do with loyalty to Richard. I was discussing treason and the arrangements already made for the boys protection after Edward iv death. Arrangements made by Edward iv. That was his right, not the Queens or her families

Why would Buckingham have done that? It just doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

Viewed 500+ years later via modern sensibilities and in isolation, the murder of the princes is a shocking act. Considered in the context of the 50 years of so before RIII took the throne, it is barely a blip on the murder-ometer. So, reluctantly, I’m putting it on Richard.

@MyWarmOchreHare
Oh I see back now you were talking of a different matter and I didn’t give a full answer

It’s no surprise she went to Canterbury for protection. The hounds were circling and as it stood she had the nearest claim to the throne. Her youngest son still with her. She did eventually agree that he went to the TOL to be with Edward though, once protection was offered to the rest of the family

She accepted that and the ones killed by R3 at the time had committed treason against her husbands wishes. I assume she was aware of what her own family were up to

No, the rumours were absolutely rampant. It is often said to be the reason Richard was betrayed by his own supporters. It is recorded by the Venetians, as quoted above, in 1483. The public were gossiping about it, as were the nobles. Even then, murdering children was not a good look. It led, arguably, to disillusionment followed by betrayal.

Because even his supporters were asking questions and he was losing support because of it.

Yes, as long as the boys are indeed Edward IV’s biological sons. And there is no proof of that. Richard can rule them in but not out.

Henry Tudor could not access the boys.

Whilst I don’t think she did. Beaufort lived at court, had the money, the power, the influence and definately the character and intelligence to have the boys killed.

She could easily have got Norfolks men to carry out the deed. ( or some other family desperate to climb the ladder). Norfolk gained great estates after their disappearances. Which the Dukes still hold today.

This is what I’m replying to. She simply could not have.

Entirely agree. Don’t think anyone has said otherwise.

IMO, the bones found at the bottom of a staircase in the white tower - and eventually interred in Westminster abbey - likely are the princes, and the princes very likely were EIV’s biological sons.

Just as the skeleton in the car park was very likely RIII from other evidence, even before mDNA gave a definitive answer, but a mismatch would have ruled it out.

You said this - It wasn’t Richards way
Their mother remained loyal to Richard throughout her life and so did her daughters

You can’t commit treason against a dead king. Richard hadn’t murdered her son and brother because of treason against a dead king. She fled because their lives were in danger from Richard.

Edited: just seen your latest post.

I think Lewis stretches his maybes more than many others, though 😀 YMMV

I disagree.

Whats YMMV

She released Richard because Richard III was threatening to break sanctuary and that would’ve threatened the lives of her daughters as well as her son. Her children had committed no crimes. Why take them into sanctuary?

She knew Richard was a danger to them.