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”).

People will no doubt disagree as any evidence in Britain of life or death appears destroyed. But the continental evidence especially from the Netherlands, with additional corroborative evidence from (for example) the aunt of the Princes, completely supports your assertion.
You also probably know that all of these documents have been verified as genuine.

The sweating sickness arrived in 1485 around the time of the Battle of Bosworth

London wasn’t particularly affected by the plague in the late 1480s, after the last one of 1478/80.

So they / or one of them could have died from the sweating sickness but they would have to have survived into 1485. Henry vii coronation certainly would have spread the disease

@DrPrunesqualer was not thinking of the plague or sweating sickness particularly, but there were things that now could be cured with an antibiotic or something, children died later on when plague and sweating sickness were no more, you can die of a dental abscess and someone mentioned one of them had problems with his teeth ( but obviously 2 children wouldn't die of that at the same time) just the point that children and teens did die , prince Arthur, Edward VI, Henry Fitzroy all died young.
If I had to murder them I'd maybe undercook the chicken and not wash my hands....

I’ve always wondered what it actually was and what the modern equivalent of sweating sickness would be.

No one really knows even now there are a number of theories. It may well have been some form of respiratory virus (bit like COVID) as it affected the rich in significant levels. What seems slightly strange is that it first arrived at the end of the Wars of the Roses - so often blamed on the French mercenaries HVII brought over with him but there doesn't seem to be a recorded instance of it in France. Those mercenaries were apparently the dregs of the (very insanitary) French prisons (offered their freedom to go and fight) so who knows what they might have been infected with.

Another view is that it might have been some form of anthrax.

‘Undercook the chicken and not wash my hands’ - username Beenthroughit 🥴 (just joking )

The eldest had problems with his lowest jaw / teeth. Evidence of physician visiting him and yes he could have died from that

Manflu.

The evidence of a physician visiting I know about, but if Richard wanted the boys dead, why would a doctor be visiting or to stop people saying he wasn’t looking after the boy’s?

Agree
Why bother treating Edward at all

I don’t believe he did want them dead

The physician visited for a while and then stopped. Edward V arrived with Richard in London early May and, at least initially, preparations were underway for his coronation on 22 June. His brother Richard was sent to join him from sanctuary only in mid-late June.

Then things changed and RIII was the one crowned on 6 July, after the Stillington secret marriage claim.

It may be that RIII initially fully intended to crown EV but once he had convinced him to take his advice rather than his mother’s. Or that he intended to keep the boys in the Tower indefinitely but comfortably. In either case, EV would have a physician for the first few weeks at least - cynically, it would demonstrate good faith to Elizabeth Woodville too!

There is some indication in the records of a plot to rescue the princes in late July, and - if RIII had been planning on keeping them
in the tower but not killing them - this might have been a prompt to him to be more ruthless.

Or just squirrel them ( or the surviving one ) away to a more secure location. So they aren’t used for a Woodville rebellion.

or killed by Henrys family

Because if you plan to murder your nephews you don't phone up (🤔) the Doctor and tell him not to bother with house calls because you're going to bump the patient off.

The aunt of the Princes was in England just once after they were born, and Richard was 6 at the time. (Edward would have been in Ludlow so unlikely to have met her.) I don’t think she could be relied upon to recognise Richard at 18/19 based on that.

Several links were posted upthread which discuss that evidence mentioned in the documentary. You may be interested to read them.

Yeah, we aren’t going to agree on which was the most straightforward and likely action, you and I 😀 but I am enjoying the discussion.

Would so love a Time Machine.

I know. But I’m going to wear that purple ribbon and if I spot you in the theatre I’ll buy you a drink 🤣🤣

Off to watch Game of Thrones. This thread has spurred me on for murder and mayhem

So Starks are York and Lancaster is Lannister..
The North remembers.

Maybe we should have a group visit to DoT?

Or just squirrel them ( or the surviving one ) away to a more secure location.

Which is exactly what killing them is. You can't get much more secure than dead.

Looks like the general consensus is that if Richard hadn’t done it, Henry would’ve !!
If Edward had become king do you think that both Richard and Henry would’ve challenged him ? Would the Battle Of Bosworth ended up as a 3 way ?

No, because if Edward V had stayed king at the age of 12, then it would have been with the support of a fair chunk of the nobility., probably including his uncle Richard in some form or another (whether as Lord protector as his father wanted, or by Richard disappearing off to the north as much as possible to avoid the Woodvilles).

Henry Tudor gathered support for his invasion in part by a pledge to marry Elizabeth of York, Edward V’s older sister. That pledge would have been pretty meaningless if Edward V was on the throne (and E of Y as the King’s sister wouldn’t have been wasted on Henry Tudor but would have probably married a foreign noble/prince).

It’s fascinating really to think that Edward IV’s death completely changed the face of the royal family. If he’d lived, Edward & Richard would’ve had heirs themselves. No Henry VIII, no Church of England, no uniting of the English and Scottish crowns.

Has any other death caused such a drastic shift? The death of Princess Charlotte perhaps. If she or her baby had lived then no Victoria.

I read that it was likely a hantavirus.

And no Victoria might have meant no haemophilia spread across European royalty, no Russian Revolution against the Tsar…

Not really (re Bosworth), because the way RIII acted after the king’s death was purely right time, and opportunity. It all happened because of their ages and vulnerability under him as Lord Protector. He struck at that vital moment, any later and the momentum would have died and he’d have just been what he was meant to be as per EIV’s wishes. Also he was helped by the nobility’s hatred of the Woodvilles. If the princes grew up, the W’s would have become even stronger with more positions of power and the whole course of everything would have gone in a whole other direction. EoY wouldn’t have had to accept Henry VII in marriage as she’d have better prospects, H would have had way less support and pretext for invasion. The nobles (as long as they were kept sweet) never wanted wars and invaders if they could help it, it cost a fortune and everyone hated the instability. That’s why (IMO) RIII definitely did kill them, because letting them grow up would have screwed any chance he had of ruling in peace. He should have won at Bosworth really, all being correct, it just turned against him and he lost the grip on it. HVII would just have been a fly to swat if the boys were taken care of as per EIV’s plan; Richard overseeing, Woodvilles would be in every nook and cranny but crucially no war. I genuinely think they would have rallied behind the teenage Princes against HVII and with wider support, they’d have won. We’d have never have had the Tudors!