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”).

@VintageDiamondGirl all of those documents relate to a person claiming yo be Richard of York. Doesn't mean he was. The TV programme and book associated with this "new" evidence were typically superficially presented, given supposed "heft" by Rob Rinder. There's a reason professional academic historians have given it a swerve. I like Janina Ramirez but her comments were very qualified and luke warm. If the academic establishment thought there was something convincing there, they'd have been included...but they weren't.

I don't think there's been a lack of engagement on these points. There are some counter-arguments about the interpretation of them (as mentioned a few times on here, I think The Rest Is History discussed this in their excellent episode but the details escape me - around I think the purpose of some of them) but it's clearly an open discussion to be continued. I just don't think it's widely considered the slam dunk P Langley and associates painted it as (and she does sometimes use language that feels uncomfortably close to conspiracy which I think does her no good). Just as the new research on the potential possession of the chain of office has been challenged on the 'other side'.

In general in history, looking for material to prop up an existing theory isn't necessarily helpful as you need to be open minded to the context and analysis of your sources. That's something we teach GCSE history students! Much harder to maintain a totally neutral stance in practice of course as we all come with own biases built in, and if people didn't write whole books based on interpretation that others violently disagreed with, we'd have a lot less fun. Given that medieval history is often using very scant evidence, it's very much open to this sort of exchange.

Just to go back to Katherine Swynford of Katherine fame briefly, Alison Weir wrote the most extraordinary non-fiction book a decade or so back in which she tried to use historical sources to prop up the story of the novel, something I don't think Anya Seton herself would have thought sensible. It was very odd indeed.

Janina Ramirez looked quite uncomfortable if I remember rightly. She was awkwardly positioned between TV presenter and historian, but it's not her period and it wasn't really clear why she was there!

It felt a bit unfair to keep saying I couldn't remember details of the challenge to Langley's sources when it's so easy to look them up. This is just the first credible google result, from someone who addresses the sources used in a very readable way. They're clearly not dismissing them without consideration but they are pointing out context to them (and possible misinterpretation):Leaps of logic and forced conclusions: my take on Langley’s missing Princes – Royal History Geeks

(Gareth Streeter is not an academic historian but has written a biography of Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry VII. I don't know much about him but the review is balanced.)

INJ a similar vein to @ItisIbeserk - https://www.englandcast.com/2025/04/princes-in-the-tower-3/

Interview and transcription about the evidence with a guy who wrote a book on the Tudor pretenders.

I listened to a podcast (last was it on bbc sounds or Spotify?) that was very compelling and suggested through quite a bit of research that the princes in the tower weren’t them.. they were very much alive and kicking and were some other historical figures that played a big part in history or something.
and the queen apparantly didn’t want the bones tested because it would blow the royal family out of the water and it would prove the queen shouldn’t have been the queen.

it was bonkers but very very interesting

dont ask me the name of the podcast, I’ve had 365 sleeps since then and my memory is terrible 😂

and the queen apparantly didn’t want the bones tested because it would blow the royal family out of the water and it would prove the queen shouldn’t have been the queen.

What absolute nonsense. The queen is not directly descended from RIII so his claim to the throne is irrelevant. She is descended from Edward IV/Henry VII-Elizabeth of York/Margaret Tudor/James I and VI.

That is really an unhinged argument!

Yep! Not least because - AFAIK - there’s no public record of the queen’s DNA, or any monarch’s DNA other than RIII, so what exactly would anything be “proved” against?!

I mean, the chances of paternity not being what they should be in all families is very real, and I read an excellent thing a few years ago - possibly sparked by the talk of why Richard III's DNA match wasn't going to be one of the current royals now I think of it - which said that the modern Royal family is ruling entirely by consent and whether or not they have any hereditary 'right' to the throne is irrelevant. Given that Richard III himself was succeeded by a distant cousin with a claim to the throne through an illegitimate line who took the throne by force, and that the ruler at that time was often the one who had the confidence of the majority of the ruling classes, the idea that anyone would be hung up on bloodlines from then in the 21st century is hilarious.

In the words of Dominic Sandbrook... "he did it, and he was right to do it"

Also pp keep saying RIII was so loyal and close to EIV yeah and he had his children declared bastards as soon as he could. He imperilled his wife and daughters and locked up his boys. Do we think that those actions showed love and loyalty to Edward?

He was undeniably loyal until the king died. After that... we don't know what pressures were on him. My gut feel is it was kill or be killed. He could see the way the wind was blowing and each step took him deeper and left him fewer and fewer options. And let's be honest, it nearly paid off. He was odds on favorite to win at Bosworth, at the time he appeared to have the throne in the bag. All he had to do was beat Henry, produce an heir and he'd be in clover with a dynasty.

The idea that he was some kind of theatrical villain is a bit far fetched, but who knows, it's possible.

I parked on top of him a few times I expect.

He was undeniably loyal until the king died.

Yes… but, to play Devil’s advocate, that could have been purely in his own self interest. EIV gave him a lot of power/recognition and let him marry Anne Neville, against Clarence’s wishes.

EIV died quite unexpectedly and Richard could have expected to have had at least another 10 years as his “right hand man”

Naaah it was that Margaret Beaufort!

Surprised to read this far in without a mention of a grassy knoll. Or a second knifeman ....

Yes, I'm not suggesting for one second he wasn't acting in his own interest. He was better off as a super loyalist, and then fate came along and changed that.

I mean the line of descent gets pretty tenuous around the 1700s with the Hanoverians and William of Orange et al. There's a pretty thin, torturous thread going all the way back to Alfred and beyond but I don't think the DNA, even if it could be tested would be definitive.

Thanks for that. I do wonder why they are fussing about this all so much
If the bones aren’t the boys they can be buried somewhere else. Why is that an issue. Is this down to RIII fans visiting the Abbey and they are concerned re loss of finance.
It suggests those interested, like ourselves, are a bit sick in some way. Yes we’re curious. Yes historians are curious. Yes we agree finding the boys won’t answer the question of exactly when they died or how. But why I wonder isn’t the Royal family interested and why isn’t the Abbey concerned about whose actually buried in their grounds

Astonishing really

why I wonder isn’t the Royal family interested

They don't want people poking about with their DNA. I'm pretty sure the Royal Family would survive someone proving they're actually descended from Charles II's milkman but it would still be embarrassing.

Plus they probably don't want to have all their ancestors dug up, sometimes the slippery slope argument is valid IMHO.

He was loyal to his family and I believe acting in the interests of keeping that line going and in power. His own son was still
alive at the time and of course his nephew Pole could take over. ( Pole was considered after his sons death)

So the self interest was very much about his family line. The Princes , whilst children of his brother had already been declared illegitimate. So in his pious eyes could not be legitimate Yorkist Kings.

Also, there were a LOT of people between him & the crown throughout the 1470s.

EIV was hale & hearty, with an heir rapidly approaching his majority, a spare & 5 surviving & marriageable dds. Then there was Clarence, & his son Edward of Warwick.

I suspect Richard was very happy being EIV's reliable (ie. 'not that twat 'false fleeting' Clarence') in his brother's eyes. He had the North, huge wealth, was married to the surviving Warwick heiress.

Suddenly, Clarence is executed, quite possibly with Richard's complicity but to be fair he'd definitely been pushing his luck. EIV dies, & the new king is a 12yo under the control of his hostile maternal family.

Basically, Richard can wait to be swept from the board by a y7 student who is being raised to see him as a threat & to eliminate him ASAP, or he can act decisively - & he does.

If RIII had won at Bosworth - & he does appear to have been doing a fair enough job as King - we would be acknowledging that his potential rivals, including children, did tend to come to grief or go AWOL. Just like those of every other ruler in history. The PITT are only 'special' because we don't know for sure.

It's the same impulse as the interest in Jack the Ripper. Everyone loves a cold case.

Brilliant post all round but this:

Richard can wait to be swept from the board by a y7 student who is being raised to see him as a threat

...is genius! 🤣❤️

This is an enlightening piece that compares some of the arguments that Ricardians raise to portray Richard in a favourable light with a game of Mornington Crescent. It's quite long but worth reading.

dodgingarrows.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/the-trouble-with-richard-iii-and-the-mornington-crescent-syndrome/

Thanks for that. I do wonder why they are fussing about this all so much

@DrPrunesqualer

If one considers, as a Christian (and probably other religions too, or none) that someone has a right for their bones to rest in peace after they are gone; to not be disturbed to satisfy modern curiosity; to not be turfed out of their centuries long resting place if their DNA doesn’t prove royal - then perhaps you can see why the Church of England is “fussing so much” and that it is nothing to do with revenue - plenty of visitors to Westminster Abbey without any given grave being there.