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”).

Richard III directly had the boys' uncle Woodville and half brother Grey captured in April along with Edward and beheaded both on 25 June, the day he was "petitioned" to become king instead by declaring their illegitimacy. Their mother had gone into hiding in May with the girls and younger boy Richard, which would have make killing the oldest too risky until the younger boy was captured too on 16 June, we would have had a different Richard III. Richard III only kept Edward V alive until he was given the throne; at that point he was nothing but a risk.

It's impossible to think anything but that Richard had them killed. Probably around 25th June. 9 days from capturing the youngest to plot, then "petitioned" with 2-4 murders on the same day. Delightful fellow.

It's impossible to think anything but that Richard had them killed. Probably around 25th June. 9 days from capturing the youngest to plot, then "petitioned" with 2-4 murders on the same day. Delightful fellow.

I agree he had them killed, but I believe they were seen in the Tower during the course of July. More likely it happened in August or September. Henry Tudor’s first invasion attempt was in October, as was Buckingham’s rebellion, so would have been before then.

They were all at it, especially the Plantagenets. Assassin is a natural cause of death for kings

Funnily enough just listened to Short History of on bbc sounds episode 3 of war of the roses, consensus is Richard killed the boys.

Actually think on balance Richard of Shrewsbury (youngest one) might have survived. Perkin Warbeck had a strong claim to be him & was accepted by European royalty as Richard IV. The way he was treated by Henry after the rebellion also supports the likelihood of Perkin actually being of royal stock. He wasn't immediately executed (as a common prole would have been) but kept under house arrest at court for 18 mths, until he escaped. If he was Richard then Henry's wife - Elizabeth of York - would have been his elder sister, hence the reluctance to kill him.

RIII should be buried at York btw - Leicester is plain daft

It’d be stupid to murder just one. There are other, more likely explanations for those actions by other countries’ courts and Henry @madbatarse

Eg treating as nobility with court:nobility/public opinions in mind & they didn’t have DNA tests so were more susceptible to imposters

GreenIsMyFavoriteColour That’s it The Trial. I thought it was earlier than the 80s. I really enjoyed it.

i assume you also disagree with the many Catholic saints that have been exhumed by the Catholic Church? Or is it just when Anglicans do it that you disapprove?

It's the exact opposite. Perkin Warbeck was kept alive becaise he was a fake. He was allowed to socialise at court so everyone would know who he was and who he wasn't.

And killing one Prince would be utterly pointless.

Yes but Lauren ( the historian ) is a huge Tudor fan and Michael ( other historian) was sure the body in the Leicester car park wasn’t Richard. So
Like everyone it’s based on opinions
and much like the Richard III society they push forward their favourites

Or was he kept alive because he was the brother of the Queen perhaps. Henry and his Queen had a loving relationship so it’s possible. Of note whilst allowed at court Warbeck wasn’t allowed to sleep with his wife …is that to avoid an heir. Why would Henry care if he was definitely not the Duke of York.

Of note as we know nothing it is possible the older Prince Edward was dead. Perhaps from the facial problem ( teeth ) he had with his lower jaw. We know a physician had been visiting him in the Tower. ( of note Mancini who saw him from a distance didn’t spot any deformity at the time)

@madbatarse

Not so much the most logical ... (we are dealing in an age of superstition ... which may not yet have ended).

More so much requires least moving parts - always a plus for robust truth.

All conspiracy theories are easily unravelled by removing the "ifs" and "buts" (ruining a Christmas admittedly 😀). It's like the dimwits blurbling on about the moon landings having to keep adding little tweaks to keep the "theory" intact.

For anyone other than Richard to have been responsible for the disappearance needs extra layers of supposition.

And once Richard had taken the throne - rightfully or wrongly - and Henry Tudor was ranged against him, then the existence of Edward V would have been problematic for the Tudor mission to say the least. It very much suited them to quietly draw a veil over them to support Henrys claim - a claim that having been proved on the battlefield was felt to be divine.

In an age of battles fought by kings, winning was the proof God was on your side. And (as with all Monarchs) with Henry Tudor you really had better not forget that. These days it's often said you are never more than 10 metres from a rat. In Tudor times you were never more than 5 metres from a Tudor rose. Often carved into the stone of buildings just in case your post it board wasn't very adhesive.

At the end of the day, what matters ? The disappearance of the princes ensured there was only one history to be written from thereonin. And this is the history that made Richard King and therefore the target of Henry Tudor.

Today I'm going to see The Daughter of Time based on Tey's book at the Charing Cross Theatre.

I haven't read the book.

This isn’t a discussion about Catholicism.
The point, quite clearly, is that if the Church are happy to dig up a Saints head, prettify it and put it on display for the public then why not retrieve the urn with the Children’s bones and do some dna testing. The later is not as disrespectful as the former

Thanks for the heads up on that. They still have seats I see. I’d appreciate what you think of it before I book 🙏

Cui bono ?

Exactly

Isn't it always

Yes! As someone with scoliosis myself that really pissed me off 😂. I realise it was about a fifteenth century king rather than me, however.....

I mean academic historians - those with doctorates and serious, scholarly work in the field. I mean Michael Hicks, Rosemary Horrox, Tony Pollard.

Would also be interested to hear what this is like!

Ooh please come back and report. I did love that book!

He wasn't immediately executed (as a common prole would have been) but kept under house arrest at court for 18 mths

No - lambert simnel (who definitely wasn’t aristocratic!) was kept alive and working in the kitchens/falconry (can’t remember which, offhand) of the court after his part in the first conspiracy.

James IV of Scotland (probably to stir up trouble in England) married Warbeck to his cousin Katherine Gordon before the invasion, so both had to be kept in some
semblance of “aristocratic”
comfort if they were to be kept at all.

Of note whilst allowed at court Warbeck wasn’t allowed to sleep with his wife …is that to avoid an heir. Why would Henry care if he was definitely not the Duke of York.

And of course them being kept apart was to avoid an heir - not because HVII believed he was really the younger Prince, but because any such child might end up the focus of further rebellion/strife for the Tudors.

Quite. It was all very well Auntie Margaret of Burgundy saying she recognised her darling nephew Richard… but she hadn’t seen him since age 7 or so, and she hated HVII anyway, so….

They were all at it, especially the Plantagenets. Assassin is a natural cause of death for kings

Stuck in a Leicester car park for 500 years. No crime deserves such a fate!