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”).

why all of a sudden make recourse to murder

Not really all of a sudden. Henry VI, his son, Edward IV’s brother George were all threats to the throne and put to death as challengers/threats to the throne of Edward IV.

I was going to say! Henry VI died very conveniently if he wasn’t offed.

Elizabeth tried the lifelong imprisonment route with Mary QOS and that didn’t end well. Perkin Warbeck ended up dead under Henry VII, as did the Earl of Warwick.

Plus HVII pretty much wiped out anyone who had any sort of Yorkist claim & didn't happen to be his missus.

If EV & ROY were murdered, & if they didn't die of a poorly timed lurgy (cf my RIII wouldn't have been stupid enough to kill them before '85 theory) then they were absolutely not unusual in being eliminated as children.

Poor kids. Whatever happened to them, imagine being 12yo Edward V, brought up as the heir to the throne, & suddenly your dad is dead.

You are supposedly in charge of your journey to London, to be crowned,, but it's made very clear you aren't.

Your dour uncle Richard is suddenly in charge of everything.

Your trusted family members are being executed, you're being shuffled off to a nice safe Tower & btw you aren't going to be King anymore, because apparently your parents' marriage is invalid.

& you aren't stupid - you know perfectly well that you & your brother are never going to come out of this prison alive, & you'll never see your mother or your sisters again.

Poor lad. It must have all been completely terrifying.

@CorvusPurpureus quite (re HVII) - but the poster I replied to suggested it had been a sudden change from the prior situation.

I think we have to assume that he thought if he didn't kill them he'd be 6ft under long before the early 90s. If he could simply have chosen not to do it I'm sure he'd take that (much easier) option.

No she didn't.

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

Lady Jane Grey. Mary Queen of Scots. Simon De Montford had the king in his possession.

Having someone in your custody does not stop a rebellion.

Plus HVII pretty much wiped out anyone who had any sort of Yorkist claim & didn't happen to be his missus.

If only Charles III had done that. I'd have watched the news that day.

There is evidence that they lived in Ireland and France with one of them dying in battle in Ireland. There is absolutely no real evidence that they died nor that Richard III murdered them. There was a documentary explaining this on television last year

There really isn't. Everyone who wanted to invade England or cause trouble came up with a fake Prince in the tower who just happened to be in their possesion. And guess what, when they wrote notes or records locally they didn't say "our fake stooge prince" they just said "the prince".

Is Perkin Walbeck legit? Nope. Nor are the others.

Yeah. It was cruel and barbaric, but Game of Thrones was inspired partly by the wars of the roses. Henry VIII was tormented by the idea of not having a son, and it makes sense when you look at the context. 😬 Not that it justifies it.

I don’t know why people think it could be anyone else but Richard. Think about it as if it happened today. An uncle takes control of his nephews estates, makes out they shouldn’t have it, locks them away (in his care) and they suddenly disappear. Come one, the uncle would be the number one suspect.

Sometimes the most logical answer is the right answer.

There is evidence people claiming to be the princes lived/died in battle. It’s not the same thing as it actually being them.

We know nothing for sure.

again if we could exhume Warbeks grave at Austin Friars we might have evidence.

Came across The present Richard Duke of Gloucester on YouTube from the 1970s giving a defence of his namesake. Obviously an old film but really good.

How could she have accessed them?

I always have to remember that Edward IV was Henry VIII grandfather. Obvious I know but it still amazes me. I think they look alike as well.

Didn’t she also cry when the bones were actually shown to have scoliosis, as she was convinced that it was propaganda to make him appear ‘evil’?

What's it called? I can find a "trial" video from the mid 1980s.

Plenty of confessions are not the truth.

Yep!

She cried because it proved he wasn’t a hunchback

forgot to attach.
History us all about finding the truth

Having recently seen her (in Melrose)and discussed it I'd disagree but obviously that's just my view

Philippa Langley obviously is going to support her own work. Have you read any of the counter arguments at all though? (Some links on this thread for example.) What do you think?