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”).

I don't think the car park was the punishment ...

If the boys had died of natural causes Richard would have announced it, and paraded their bodies to show it. They didn't. I believe they were murdered by Buckingham, who was duped into doing so by the Welsh cattle-rustler Henry Tudor. We'll never really know. What we do know is that Richard fought bravely on the battlefield, that Lord Stanley turned against him, and that Henry Tudor only became King because he had an Act of Parliament backdated to the day before Richard's death (22nd August 1485, since you ask) declaring him to be king before the battle of Bosworth Field. Henry, who became Henry VII, stole the throne. That much is fact, and is documented. Rest in peace, Good King Richard.

Her great great grandfather-in-law was also Edward III, and he was also her great-great-great grandfather-in-law.
For Edward IV his great-great grandfather (Cecily) was his great-great-great-great grandfather (by Richard of York, Cecily husband) and also his great-great grandfather (by Richard of Conisburgh, different branch).
It's a bit messy.

Henry Tudor only became King because he had an Act of Parliament backdated to the day before Richard's death (22nd August 1485, since you ask) declaring him to be king before the battle of Bosworth Field.

Errr, what? HVII did try and do this in order to declare those fighting for RIII as treasonous, post hoc. But it’s not why he became king - he became king by conquest. Just as Edward IV did when fighting Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou.

(He also solidified the conquest by marrying EofY, of course)

But the boys were declared illegitimate so he had no need to kill them. The marriage between their parents (Edward vi and Elizabeth woodville) was declared null and void as he was supposedly already secretly married to another woman (sorry, can’t remember who) so all the kids were declared bastards and Richard could be legitimate king. It would surely be better simply to let them live discredited?

Acts declaring children illegitimate and out of the line of succession can be reversed. The Beaufort line (from which Henry Tudor got his Lancastrian blood claim) was declared legitimate but not given a right of succession. Both Mary I and Elizabeth I were declared illegitimate and that was never reversed, though Henry VIII put them into his Act of Succession anyway. It was rumoured that Henry VIII was considering declaring his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy as his heir at one point; however, HF died as a young man so the question went away.

TL; DR: declaring children illegitimate didn’t stop them potentially achieving the throne.

Was it a horse park? 😉

@DrPrunesqualer @SheilaFentiman @NewAgeNewMe

Reporting back after seeing the play 'The Daughter of Time' at the Charing Cross Theatre.

As said I haven't read the book but IMO this is well worth seeing. The actor playing Alan Grant is convincing as a 1950s detective and the other roles are well acted if a little 'theatrical', especially that of Marta, but I did warm to her character in the second act. It was part drama, part history lesson, and light-hearted and hilarious at times.

It was my first visit to this theatre which is in the arches of Charing Cross station - very atmospheric!

He was Edward VIII wasn't he?

Thank you @Westfacing will see if I can persuade someone to come with me otherwise will go on my own.

As a pp has argued, he was not actually in a very strong position in his brother’s reign. He spent much of his time in the north, away from court. His nephew was brought up close to his maternal family. Richard faced a difficult situation when his brother died. He could not rely on retaining his northern offices under his nephew.

His arguments re. his nephew’s illegitimacy were unconvincing and would have had no weight if his nephew had survived and grown, married and had sons. Richard acted swiftly to remove leading opposition to his plans, brutally in the case of Lord Hastings, in a manner designed to intimidate anyone else considering opposing his moves.

Bu far the best work to read on the difficulties Richard faced following his seizure of the throne is that by Rosemary Horrox. Hers is expert work on the politics of the reign, in particular Richard’s loss of longstanding Yorkist support and the narrowness of his own base. Even his closest supporters baulked at his consideration of marriage to his niece, which he planned so that Tudor could not himself marry her which he had formally pledged to do. She has decades of academic work behind her on this subject.

While John Ashdown-Hill produced valuable work on the DNA & remains searches, he was not an expert academic on the politics of the reign. I work in a related discipline and have a colleague in my faculty who teaches this historical period. They list A-H’s work on their reading list in a section on the search for Richard’s remains, but do not recommend it for this particular topic. I’ve had some interesting text chats the last day or so with them on the subject of this thread - it’s been fascinating to revisit it, a subsidiary course I took years ago.

Just a hint regarding seating - we were in Row D in the stalls which was a little too near the front for me, next time I would go a little further back. The seating is very well tiered and from what I could see there are no 'bad' seats.

Also there is a nice bar with friendly staff!

Thanks, @Westfacing - Marta is also a theatrical type in the books so fair enough. All that nibbling on the perfect biscuit 😀

@Arraminta thanks, yes, I already corrected myself.

Fair point!

There were so many at the time who had motive, anyone who had a claim to the throne could have done it and they weren't short of claimants, Henry Tudor and/or his mother, Margaret Beaufort (perfect cover, known to the boys, no one would suspect a woman), Duke of Buckingham. I personally think Richard was innocent, Tudor propaganda would want to paint him as a villain but if you read contemporary accounts of his character, i don't think he would have done it. Read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, its about an detective who look into Richard III's alleged crimes from is sick bed, it's a short but great read.

Thanks for coming back
Ive never been to that Theatre either but sounds like it’s worth a go.
Thanks for the heads up on seating too. I like a circle seat so good to know the seats are well tiered

Perhaps mumsnetters should don a purple ribbon so we can all wave at each other thanks to this thread 😁

Although

Fitzroy was never given titles that would suggest he was ever realistically considered for the Kingship
His blood wasn’t blue enough given his mothers status and it’s all about the bluer the blood the better
Lineage was everything
Henry 8 came after this period and whilst I’m aware things don’t change that quickly illegitimate kids were before Henry and during his reign not acceptable heirs.

Had there been no legitimate boys at all Henry would have left the crown straight to Mary. She held the title Princess of Wales ( up to Edward’s birth I believe it was dropped sometime after )

the fact Henry vii burnt all evidence referencing the Edward iv marriage prior to marrying his daughter is extremely significant in trying to make her birth legitimate and increase his claim on the throne.

Henry Tudor and/or his mother, Margaret Beaufort (perfect cover, known to the boys, no one would suspect a woman)

Was Margaret Beaufort known to the boys? Edward V had been in Ludlow for most of his life (since he was about 3) and I don’t think MB ever served as one of Elizabeth Woodville’s ladies or anything, where she might have got to know Richard a little (though even then, royal children were not at court much and were at “nursery palaces” farther from the dangers and plagues of London) .

If you think Henry Tudor did it, then you presumably think the boys died after Bosworth, as Henry was in France until then.

Oh, and 20 pages into a thread about RIII… The Daughter of Time has been mentioned a fair bit already!

The comment copied by Sheila from a previous poster
no one would suspect a woman .

Oh yes they would! Women were accused of treason and were extremely proficient in scheming and plotting to their families benefit. They may not have fought on the battlefield but never assume they weren’t key player's.

This has been addressed upthread. Any child could be delegitimised and relegitimised at will, as needed. Delegitimising them was a temporary extra measure but would not hold against any concerted Woodville or Beaufort or any other later challenge to reclaim the throne.

Motive but no access. The DoT is an entertaining novel but simply does not stand up to actual historical research.

Yy. To quote Lord Peter Wimsey: when you know how, you know who.

Means and opportunity come before motive, and RIII had all of them.

Not necessarily as again upthread it’s been mentioned. Delegitimising Edward and Richard didn’t mean they could legitimately become King. There’s precedent noted upthread.

I have read that they were. Uries a long way u der the stairs, and we must remember that the tower has v3n used for burials for centuries, I read that whenever someone dug to plant a plant or whatever there were fragments of bone.
If the bones are much older than the time period we are thinking of then they could be anyone, and for sure the DNA would be interesting . It would shut people up about demanding their DNA is tested. I hope they are and they turn out to be from a totally different period and are shown to be people from somewhere far awY
Gum disease, on its own bit a definite thing, am sure plenty other people had gum disease.
Tbh if I was ordering them to be killed id either have them smuggled out of the tower at night and have them towed to miles away and have them buried there or have them buried at sea.
Or is wait until there was some sort of epidemic or disease outbreak and say they died of dysentery or suchlike, or falling off a horse or accidentally being shot with an arrow, so many children died that sort of thing would not have been too suspicious, especially if they had a royal burial

I'm very tempted by the play. I also loved the DOT as a teenager and did a unit on this period at university as a result. By the end of the course, I think most of us thought Richard had done it or they'd died of an illness.