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”).

Your Mileage May Vary.

Broadly - two people looking at the same situation and reaching different conclusions

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ymmv

I agree. I think both are very likely. But if they were going to test the bones, they’d do it against a nailed on match if the bones are the princes. I wonder who that would be.

I just disagree. They had been illigitamised and Richard caused no harm to other claimants. Why kill two illegitimate children and leave others with a true claim alive.

Hence, I believe that’s a reasonable reason with precedent

I believe someone did the mDNA work for the Princes before RIII was dug up.

But once you have DNA profiles digitised, it’s no big deal to compare the bones to RIII’s DNA profile as well as any mDNA profile. There’s no reason not to do both, if both comparator profiles exist (and both would match if the bones were the princes and EW didn’t get pregnant at least twice by some other dude during war and exile and sanctuary and all that jazz)

Good point well made.

Remember, RIII didn’t have long - two years or so - to deal with other claimants. The princes were probably killed within 3-4 months of his ascending the throne, then Henry Tudor’s first invasion attempt was a month or so later, then Buckingham- also a potential claimant - was executed. In 1484 Richard’s son and then his wife died, and by the end of that year, he was expecting Henry Tudor to try again any minute. Edward, Earl of Warwick was the only other claimant “ahead” of RIII on the yorkist side and his attainder was well based on his father’s proven and repeated treason (a bit more sturdy than a secret marriage!).

If he had won bosworth, perhaps Warwick would have also been disappeared, or perhaps RIII would have felt secure on the throne by the victory and let him be

Who did he leave alive? The Earl of Warwick was a politically powerless child whose father had been legally disinherited (I know the princes were also kids but they were not politically powerless and their father was the King, not an executed traitor).

That’s it. There is no one else with a better claim to the throne than Richard.

Dr. John Ashdown - Hill did.

The fact is that Richard didn’t need to kill them. He had already successfully taken the older one (Edward V)’s crown and made himself king. Yes the boys could pose a threat when they grew up IF they were successful in raising an army against Richard, but so were lots of people a threat to Richard. When they died everyone thought he did it, it undermined his authority and credibility. I think it’s more likely his enemies did it. This is supported by the fact that the Princes’ mum never accused Richard of killing her boys (wouldn’t you?) and then it was Henry VII who had her packed off to a nunnery during his reign. Maybe she knew. Considering her remaining child Elizabeth (the princes’ sister) had to marry Henry VII maybe she had no choice but to keep quiet in the nunnery or her daughter would suffer.

"AIBU to have murdered my Dnephews?" 😁

If the 2 skeletons weren't the princes, who on earth were they? The chances that 2 boys of the same age from approximately the same time period were found buried together in the tower are pretty low. Yes maybe some children of servants might have lived there but they wouldn't have been buried there! People in the 14th c. were very religious, they wouldn't have just stuck their kids under some random staircase!

Also not sure why people are saying 'they had been declared illegitimate so were no risk to him.' So what? They could be re-legitimised - as a pp said Henry VII undid the de-legitimisation of EoW & E IV's relationship. Mary I and Elizabeth I were both declared illegitimate at one point, didn't stop them eventually ruling.

Also don't get people arguing 'Well their mother/the Pope/other random person never accused him so clearly THEY didn't think he did it.'
I mean, no shit sherlock. Firstly, who goes around accusing an omnipowerful monarch of anything?
Secondly, who goes around deliberately pissing off someone whom you believe to be a murderer?
If you genuinely believed he'd murdered several of your family members publicly accusing him of doing so would be like painting a big sign saying 'Do me next' on your back.
Thirdly, do people really think EVERY single document from 600plus years ago has survived? We're working off scraps and fragments. E o W could have written multiple letters saying 'burn this on reading but Richard killed my kids,' just because documents don't exist now doesn't mean they never did!

Basically if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. The most obvious and likely explanation is usually the correct one.

Edward V was a living former king. You can’t leave a former king alive. They would have been successful in raising an army - there were already plots to rescue them and restore Edward to the throne.

As you say, when they died, everyone thought he did it and it undermined his reign. So, if they’d been killed by an enemy, why wouldnt Richard have mentioned it to anyone? Denounced his enemies for murdering two children? And the question which always comes up and is never answered - how would his enemies have got to the boys?

Elizabeth Woodville rallied to Henry VII’s cause. If her boys were alive, she wouldn’t have. She knew they were dead before Henry came to the throne. When was she going to make these accusations? While Richard was on the throne and she’d have been killed? Afterwards, when he’d been killed by the man she’d backed? What would have been the point in accusing him then? And who to? The rumours were already flying that Richard had killed her sons.

She was sent to the abbey because Henry wanted a court free of her Yorkist influence and the impression of a new start under the Tudors, especially following the Lambert rebellion.

Exactly! I do love the discussions about this subject, but I truly don’t understand why people are so determined to not believe that Richard killed them. It is, on balance, the only logical explanation, but something about Richard III has people arguing he’s misunderstood and not a murderer in a way which never happens for any other monarch.

Arguments against the bodies being the Princes include
It is evidenced that the bodies were too low down to be of the 15th century.
At least one appeared to be a girl

It is VERY hard to accurately sex the skeleton of a pre-pubertal child. I really wouldn’t read anything at all into that.

Perhaps because of Shakespeares portrayal
Perhaps because no one likes the idea of anyone rewriting history ( if that is the case that is )
Perhaps because people need facts before they point the finger and there are none
Perhaps because people see Richard as unjustly accused.

These days we like a fair trial. ( The bodies would at least be a start. Perhaps they weren’t killed at all …. we really know nothing )

@DrPrunesqualer Funnily enough I was wondering the same thing about Shakespeare’s portrayal. Plus Thomas More described him v. negatively.

Shakespeare’s depiction is so villainous! It’s brilliant Tudor propaganda, but I wonder whether that’s made people sceptical that he was really such a bad ‘un?

He probably was, but in a typically ruthless Medieval monarch way as a PP pointed out.

I agree. I can’t see Richard any more ruthless than others and if we look at the Tudors less so.

So have people been drawn in by Tudor propaganda ???

Less so? He had Hastings and Buckingham executed, for two, and there’s no sign he disapproved of the execution of his brother Clarence. Plus the execution of EW’s brother and son.

I would say he was as ruthless as the tudors after him and EIV
before him. Because you had to be if you were monarch then.

Thirdly, do people really think EVERY single document from 600plus years ago has survived? We're working off scraps and fragments. E o W could have written multiple letters saying 'burn this on reading but Richard killed my kids,' just because documents don't exist now doesn't mean they never did!

Exactly this! Henry’s letters to Anne Boleyn survive; hers to him do not (probably deliberately destroyed after her execution). Letters from Margaret Beaufort to Henry Tudor when he was in France haven’t been found but that doesn’t mean she didn’t write for 14 years or whatever, just that he was moving around and not able to keep letters or wasn’t very sentimental or dropped them in a puddle…

As for drawn in by Tudor propaganda- I read The Daughter of Time and Paul Murray Kendall’s bio of Richard III in my teens, and have never read More and only recently seen Shakespeare’s RIII. So if anything, I was subject to Ricardian propaganda 😀

Love this!

I’ve always thought that the younger one was swapped and so survived-possibly one of the later ‘pretenders’ , or just living in obscurity. I think Henry did for the older one. But that’s just because I fell in love with Josephine Tey’s fictional Richard when I was about 10 and it’s proven to be unshakeable!

No-exactly this. Most of them were probably burned after reading, however innocuous, for safety’s sake, as one days innocent letter was the next days arrest warrant.

The fact is that Richard didn’t need to kill them. He had already successfully taken the older one (Edward V)’s crown and made himself king. Yes the boys could pose a threat when they grew up IF they were successful in raising an army against Richard

Lady Jane Grey? Mary Queen of Scots? Perkin Warbeck?

You don't need to be free and in a position to raise an army to be a threat to a king. Other people do it on your behalf, perhaps even without your knowledge, perhaps even against your will.

It sucks, but it was pretty much essential to kill strong challengers. In the blood bath of the Wars of the Roses even more so.

If the 2 skeletons weren't the princes, who on earth were they? The chances that 2 boys of the same age from approximately the same time period were found buried together in the tower are pretty low.

Nope, the site goes back way earlier than the late middle ages and the other bones they've found have been earlier, these bones were quite deep and likely to be even older.

If you had two small bodies to bury, are you going to get a team of builders in to lift up flag stones, or are you going to quietly sneak them out and bury them elsewhere? Which is less obvious?

Whatever happened there is no way those bodies are the princes. They're roman or Saxon or who knows what.