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”).

Agree a little bonkers.
The Queens link though goes back through the Tudors to Margaret of Scotland . They won the English crown in battle 1485 and whether defeating Richard or the Princes in Battle what difference does it make.
That’s one of the ways they took the Crown in those days
It would make no difference to the Royal Family .

HE GOT HIS IN THE END THOUGH, @HenryTudor1485 .

• His horse fucked off and left him
• He was battered to death
• Shakespeare got hold of him and fucked him over some more post-mortem
• His bones spent a goodly period of time ignominiously mouldering beneath a Leicester car park
• His lover niece put a ring on it with his mortal enemy

<happy sigh>

Thank you for posting this, I will read tonight.

As a Catholic I agree. But this country has been running rough shot over burial grounds to make way for mega roads and roundabouts, new housing estates and office blocks.
Thus is by far less desecration of holy ground or the bones interred

I actually believe it was Margaret Beaufort too.

Strange kind of “agree”

And odd, then, to say you don’t see what the fuss is about, if you consider burial places sacred in any way.

This is the thing that everybody overlooks about this period in history. They were a bloodthirsty lot - they had to be because a moment's weakness could see them dead. It seems awful nowadays but was a way of life for many people hoping for power - kill or be killed. After all, Richard was eventually killed.
Henry Vll wasn't very nice either so he might've done it.

This is the thing that everybody overlooks about this period in history. They were a bloodthirsty lot - they had to be because a moment's weakness could see them dead. It seems awful nowadays but was a way of life for many people hoping for power - kill or be killed. After all, Richard was eventually killed.
Henry Vll wasn't very nice either so he might've done it.

My agree is based on we shouldn’t be disturbing anyone’s burial ground.
However
We, as a country do. So there is lots of precedent for it.

How and when do you think MB did it and why did Elizabeth Woodville plot with her to marry Henry Tudor to Elizabeth of York if she did do it?

It was a secret 🤫

My guess would be that they refuse this request in part because they don’t want to set a precedent of unidentified remains in various places being exhumed and tested. There’s also no point in disturbing them in the Abbey, which very much remains consecrated ground, is there, as what would it actually tell us and why do we need to know it? You have to have really good reason to exhume remains full stop.

Henry and Elizabeth fell in love didn’t they? I’m thinking would you love the person that killed your brothers. I’m assuming not…

Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII’s mother) is a prime suspect for me. She was ruthless in her desire for her son to be king.

Richard may have been guilty. However his character has been somewhat assassinated over the years thanks to the Tudors.

My favourite history mystery is how Amy Dudley died. Wife to the Earl of Leicester, Queen Elizabeth’s favourite. Found dead at the foot of a set of shallow steps at Cumnor Place.

Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII’s mother) is a prime suspect for me. She was ruthless in her desire for her son to be king.

Motive - perhaps. Means and opportunity?

@SheilaFentiman

This is local to me
Local Anglican Church that has the Head of St Thomas More buried in his daughters family vault ( she lived just up the road )
The Church want to remove it after 500 years and put it on display !!!

Pilgrims = money!!

Exactly @ItisIbeserk

.

Definitely not Margaret Beaufort or Buckingham, they wouldn't have had the reach/influence.

My theory (lads dead by 1485, bodies missing, HVII stfu) does allow for RIII deciding 'I wish the bastards dead' & putting that in place, but that just feels wrong.

He may very well have been a ruthless tyrant, or a reluctant ruler who thought he'd better step up to avoid chaos. & he totally usurped the throne - if EV & ROY were declared illegitimate, that still left Edward of Warwick, whose father's treason didn't bar him from the succession.

It's clear that in 1483 he thought he was the best man for the job, & was happy to shunt aside at least 3 small nephews.

I'm just not convinced he would have killed them THEN - murdering sweet golden haired innocents who had been recognised as the heirs months previously would have had awful optics.

Executing surly spotty adolescents on trumped up charges for treason, in the early '90s - he'd absolutely have pulled that off if he'd won at Bosworth, remarried & produced heirs.

So you would disagree with them doing that, as disturbing his remains?

I would have thought people interested in More would visit the grave as readily as look at a skull! I don’t think your local church should do it.

ETA the picture hadnt posted, I see it’s a bit more than a local church!

Philippa Langley found absolute proof of life of both of those boys as young men

St Dunstans , where the head is , is a local Anglican Church. Not Catholic.

We’re not talking about Canterbury Carhedral

ps. Yes I would definately disagree. We see, however, that the Church doesn’t seem that bothered about disturbing the grave.

There are several links on this thread discussing that evidence. It certainly is not absolute proof of life.

Richard might have done it, and Henry the V11 was definitely capable of doing it ( very cold and determined), but I think both are unlikely- if you want to take the throne you take it, but you keep the challengers alive and under your control to stop rebellions forming behind them. Within a couple of generations there had been depositions, and forced abdications- why all of a sudden make recourse to murder? The shadow would be cast over you for ever afterwards, you wouldn't choose it- shove them into a castle with your chatelaine in charge is much better.

Didn’t James Tyrell confess to murdering the boys on the order of Richard 111. He suffocated them in a feather mattress.