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”).

The Daughter of Time is historically very doubtful (altho's I agree it's a great read).
Tey's reluctance to take Sir Thomas Moore as a reliable witness is not something historians would necessarily accept.

Philippa Langley. I don't believe either of the princes were murdered in the tower. I think Edward V moved to Coldridge in Devon - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.melstridemp.com/news/mp-hears-how-edward-v-could-be-buried-his-constituency-coldridge&ved=2ahUKEwjsq4vLkNSOAxWjZ0EAHTiaICQQFnoECEcQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw0WXpdA_8SKlLW3W45JSUSy

and lived as John Evans and Richard of York moved to France, then led a rebellion against Henry Vii having been brought up as Perkin Warbeck.

Yup, it was Richard.

Anyone claiming it was Margaret Beaufort or Henry VII clearly misunderstands the historical context of the period.

@TheOtherAgentJohnson The Rest is History podcast did a deep dive! It was very interesting but nothing new, good for an intro to the topic.

She didn’t have the power to order their deaths. Only one man did.

I am certain Richard III murdered the boys.

I think he did it (or had it done) for the perfectly valid reason that if he hadn't killed them, then Edward V (or to be exact his Woodville uncles) would have had Richard himself executed in pretty short order.

Kill or be killed, basically.

Having said that. I also think that if he had won Bosworth he would have been a far better king than Henry VII turned out to be.

https://exeter.anglican.org/devon-church-holds-clues-to-princes-in-the-tower-mystery/

😁

I’m neither historian nor expert. But I am certain Richard had them killed.

The evidence isn't reliable enough to pin it on anyone. Convincing books don't alter that fact.

There was very interesting documentary not too long ago where they found evidence of a will which bequeaths an item that very well could have belonged to one of the princes to a descendent. With a bit more digging they found out that the will belonged to the family of Sir James Tyrell who was a member of Richard III's household and was often named as a strong suspect for killing the boys.

https://www.paramount-mediahub.co.uk/press-releases/breakthrough-in-centuries-old-princes-in-the-tower-mystery-revealed-in-new-channel-5-documentary

Well, I guess we could just jump back in time and see what happened. Oh hang on a minute, that was already a major plot point in one of Jodi Taylor's books...

I’ve wondered about this. Richard’s only legitimate heir died in 1484 but perhaps he had the princes killed before then assuming that his son would succeed him?

If he didn’t, it would def. have made sense for Henry VII to get rid of them as they were a major threat to him.

How could Henry VII have accessed them?

@MyWarmOchreHare I know that they weren’t seen after 1483, which does that suggest Richard did away with them. Henry also had every reason to do it if they were still alive somewhere in 1485.

Those bones from the Tower really should be DNA-tested.

Potential bribery of the staff and guards around the boys to have them do the deed or look the other way while someone else did.. He had supporters in England who were not happy with Richard III. And don't forget his mother Margaret Beaufort. She was veery powerful and wealthy and her husband was pretty changeable in his loyalties apparently. So it's not completely unrealistic for someone to do the crime for him.

Lifelong Ricardian here,

I think it was Margaret Beaufort who ordered the two princes be murdered so that her non-entity of a son could claim the throne, which he had absolute no right to.

That theory is generally based on the idea that the princes were still alive at the time of the Tudor accession.

As an historian, I'm inclined to think Rich III was the guilty one.

Fascinating character, hard to marry his reputation and character before his kingship with that of a murderer of two innocent boys but as a pp said, if you understood the context of the time and how medieval kingship worked, it is only the conclusion.

The evidence, such as it is, is also not in his favour.

Very disappointed in Rob Rinders documentary where he examined "new" evidence and concluded that Richard was innocent - the evidence he examined does not pass basic stress tests.

I won't hear a word said against my Margaret Beaufort, a much maligned woman.

If the boys were alive, Richard would’ve produced them to quell dissent. Elizabeth Woodville wouldn't have been marrying her daughter to their murderer, and I doubt Henry and Elizabeth would’ve had the seemingly happy relationship they did if he’d murdered her two young brothers.

They were dead well before Henry VII got anywhere near the throne.

Why would those unhappy with Richard rally to the cause of Henry if Edward and Richard were still alive?

If they’d been murdered by a rebellious guard, in a fortress, the nephews of the King, by his enemies, why wouldn't Richard have mentioned it? Murdering children wasn’t a good look even then, as Richard’s legacy attests.

How could she have ordered it? They were in a fortress under the King’s protection. She had no power to order the murders of the King’s nephews.

Yes, which is complete nonsense.

I know I’m repeating an earlier post, but if the boys were alive, Richard would’ve produced them to quell dissent. Elizabeth Woodville wouldn't have been marrying her daughter to their murderer, and I doubt Henry and Elizabeth would’ve had the seemingly happy relationship they did if he’d murdered her two young brothers.

They were dead well before Henry VII got anywhere near the throne.

Going to be controversial here but I don’t believe they were killed in the Tower at all.

It wasn’t Richards way
Their mother remained loyal to Richard throughout her life and so did her daughters
Richard had many relations who could have posed a risk to his crown and yet not one ( there were 17 in total) was killed by him for his security of it
Edmund Mortimer and his brother were kept alive during Henry ivs reign whilst having a better claim to the throne. They weren’t killed just hidden away. This was more in Richard’s character and a precedent already set than having the boys killed

It’s worth noting that to kill the boys but not produce bodies is also not the way things were done in those days. Heirs or those with claims to the thrown or titles were often killed but the evidence of such was always produced. Richard could easily have said they died of the plague or sickness or anything really, he was the King.

It only became rumoured or rather rumours spread that Richard killed the boys the year that he was killed How convenient to spread such rumours at that time and yet the Princes mother ( or sister can’t remember ) still cherished a bible with Richard’s name on it….whilst the rumours spread.

So for me There’s no evidence, no bodies, no point and it was totally out of character.

OP, you are Dominic Sandbrook and I claim my £5!

and I think you are correct

Whilst I don’t think she did. Beaufort lived at court, had the money, the power, the influence and definately the character and intelligence to have the boys killed.

She could easily have got Norfolks men to carry out the deed. ( or some other family desperate to climb the ladder). Norfolk gained great estates after their disappearances. Which the Dukes still hold today.

@BebbanburgIsMine