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”).

Absolutely. A Lutheran England would have looked very different. That was another thing I'd been mulling over actually - whether it would have been possible to take it that far. I guess it's just unknowable as the imaginary political ecosystem is a mystery.

They get a lot of mentions on history threads but The Rest is History did a great couple of podcasts (can't remember exactly how many) on their 'favourite' counterfactuals, with very much a split approach on the value of them. I think they are just really interesting and let people analysis what elements of actual events led to them happening etc but the argument that even by choosing what we consider a 'pivotal' moment to consider we are pre-judging what led to them happening is also very valid - are they ever genuinely open conversations?

I'm getting flashbacks to my historiography papers now.

I suspect some here already knew, but this popped into my feed today

https://dramaquarterly.com/bbc-confirms-launch-for-historical-king-conqueror/

Thanks for that !

Some of the rest of history podcasts are on bbc player. Where do people listen otherwise as I’m not very technical Tia

If I had to put money on it, I’d suspect that they were killed by someone fairly close to him within the royal circle, who thought it was what he probably wanted, and that they’d gain favour by having done it.

I listen on Apple podcasts but they're on all the main players - Spotify/Acast etc. You can download any of them and the basic accounts are free.

I've got a RIH membership which was a present. I don't make as much use of it as I could - I can't really be bothered with the Discord forum as it's just yet another place to go on the internet. I do like the fact I can listen to their long series in one go on a trip when they're first released. And they do general little chat episodes where they often talk about tiny elements of bigger things that can stray into counterfactual territory which can be good. They do tend to get their mates kids on to talk to though which we always find a tiny bit annoying.

In which case we heard the same episode 😀

The inevitability of England being conquered by someone just happened to dovetail with the Norman claim and their secret weapon.

When you follow the broad wake of "English" and then British history since the Roman conquest, then what is striking is how for almost all of it, England played a pivotal role in between the Scandiwegan countries and more mainland Europe of France, Spain and the other bits 😀

DNA doesn't lie.

The recent long series on the Saxons and then the Norman conquest was an eye opener for me in a period of history I'd never been that interested in. Totally turns it on its head from how did the Norman conquest happen to why it then ended up being the last invasion for so long given how valuable England was as an asset. When school history very much talks about the arrow in Harold's eye and what if the Normans hadn't tricked his army...Stamford Bridge barely gets a look in!

Once you realise that the Normans still own England, you find yourself marvelling at the mechanism that has kept it so. You also realise why every little tinpot dictator makes getting their (male, naturally) offspring into a top English public school. Presumably they believe (and history is behind them) that's the secret to embedding your family at the top table.

The Norman hold on "our" land has survived, countless uprisings, the anarchy, the black death, musical chairs of the throne, religious revolution, a civil war, geographical consolidation, endless wars with Europe, then two world wars to boot. And they are sill there. The knotweed of England.

Casual readers might start to understand why there's a "right" and a "wrong" history to remember.

Reading this thread, it reminds me how things can turn on a sixpence. Who would’ve thought that the capable and strong Edward IV would be dead at 40? If he had lived even 5 years more, Edward V would’ve been crowned, no problem.

...and Richard III was odds on winner at Bosworth with twice the size of army and holding the high ground. If he hadn't rushed in with a small team to finish Henry early he'd almost certainly have won.

In fact, you could argue he deliberately took a massive risk early to end the battle at the start and save a very large number of lives. (We'll never know to what extent that was his motivation.)

Another consequential death was that of Prince Henry, son of HVIII and KoA, who lived for only a month. If he had survived to adulthood, likely no divorce (plus his sister Mary would have been married much younger and possibly borne children)

I get them via the "PocketCasts" app. (I try to swerve Google and Apple and BBC sounds wherever possible).

Who knows what would have happened if Percy had shown up too though? And imagine having to guess what Stanley would do.

After 1000 years I think the Normans can safely call themselves English.

Sadly, despite having a surname that supposedly has Norman origins, my family has failed to cling on to any sort of power, wealth or land. I think we've gone to the Saxon.

DH and I are also sadly resigned to the fact that the 'we're all descended from Edward III' thing, which sounds good, is very unlikely when you come from a provably long line of poor people. We've got nothing so much as a Lord of the Manor between us going back to the 18th century so far.

Could the historians on here tell me when if became known that the princes were dead - was it announced, assumed, declared?

If it was never officially declared, is there a record of anyone speculating on their whereabouts during their known lifetime?

AFAIK, the boys were never declared dead.

Mancini returned to Italy not long after RIII’s coronation (on 6 July 1483) and reported in his account that there was “a suspicion he (EV) had been done away with” - but we don’t know exactly when the boys were last seen at the tower.

There just aren’t a lot of sources with very clear dates on them, AFAIK.

There are various sources quoted upthread that mentioned rumours of the Princes' death before 1485. Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck both played on the uncertainty of their whereabouts (although Lambert Simnel was meant to be Warwick but it's all quite confusing!) but there was never any announcement of their deaths at all. We can take from what we know as an absence of questions about them post 1485 that there may have been a general assumption they were dead at that point - otherwise, where were they? Where were they being kept prisoner for example? (It was common knowledge that the young Earl of Warwick was being kept in the Tower over the years that followed.) Would you have expected to see them at their sister's coronation etc.? But we are working off fairly few sources overall and those questions may have been asked.

Mentioning Lambert Simnel prompted me to look up those details and I see that Henry VII showed Warwick off in public to prove he wasn't dead (which appeared to be a rumour, although how that would mean he could also be Lambert Simnel doesn't quite work, or had escaped from the tower) but obviously did nothing of the sort when Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Prince Richard.

And yet 70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army - that's all the top knobs that pitched in to oppress the Anglo-Saxons and other assorted peoples.

Bloody immigrants.

Well Henry Tudor acted as thought they were dead. So that was that.

Then - (as now in Trump land) - most people knew to act along with whatever the fact of the day was. When Henry Tudor rocked up and said "It's my turn at the dressing up box" the lack of people who said "Er, what about Edward ?*" set the seal.

*If you heard that question within earshot of a Tudor spy, then your only answer should have been "Who ?"

Yes well, 500 years before that the Anglo-Saxons had rocked up with their language, which is still hugely dominant, upsetting the Celts. Then there were the Beckers, coming over and stealing all the jobs when iron was the new big thing.

We will all be everything. We’s all have stands of the DNA of William the Conqueror’s army mixed in with blood of the Angles and the Saxons and the Celts.

Henry VII couldn't prove they were dead, because they were AWOL by 1485.

That could be a) murdered by RIII b) murdered by someone else c) dead of natural causes with embarrassing timing or d) smuggled abroad. Wild card e) present & correct in the Tower, promptly done in by HVII.

a) & c) are the likeliest.

HVII needed to marry EoY, to shut up the remaining Yorkists. Her being declared illegitimate was awkward, so least said easiest mended - hence all copies of Titulus Regius, which bastardised all of EIV's children by his queen, being quietly burned.

To make a hooha about TR being probably bollocks, legally, to legitimise Elizabeth, would also have legitimised her missing brothers. Which would have made Edward V the lawful monarch all over again...if anyone could find him. Obviously not in HVII's interests.

It seems that HVII didn't know/couldn't prove where the boys were. So he decided it would be easiest not to comment on their fate at all.

Yes, they were almost certainly dead by then. Also, if they hadn't been, he'd have made sure of it, as he did with the rest of their relatives, & was seen as sensible kinging at the time.

Doesn’t the ‘cancelling’ of TR imply that HVII knew they were safely dead? And wouldn’t come back (otherwise than) to haunt him ?

But he didn't. He had TR quietly suppressed. Because he wasn't in a position to produce the princes.

If he'd been able to prove the boys were dead, then he could have revoked TR, re-legitimising his wife as the rightful surviving heir of EIV, supporting the whole York/Lancaster union AND dumping shade on RIII as an evil usurper & murderer.

All he needed for that route was the boys' bodies, & he didn't have them.

He was also fairly clear about ruling by right of conquest, not through EoY's claim. Again, being able to produce her dead brothers would have tidied up all the loose ends & put a stop to future pretenders

The only reason he would not have declared the boys dead would be because he couldn't be sure if they were dead.