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”).

That is an excellent point. If he had known for sure they were dead, he would certainly have said so.

This is the best of mumsnet😀😀😀😀

Totally 🍿

Thank you for recommending the rest is history podcasts.

They have done the Wars of the Roses in forensic detail (as with the JFK assassination). And general more facts means less scope for the less credible theories.

I read a joke recently...

A conspiracy theorist dies, and goes to heaven. At the gates is God, beaming. God tells the theorist that as he has lived a good life, God can answer any question he likes before he enters heaven.

Without a seconds hesitation the conspiracy theorist says: "I always wanted to know who killed JFK ?"

God replies: "It was Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone."

The theorist looks at God and finally says: "Wow. It goes even higher than I thought."

People my age who had a precocious childhood may remember a BBC series in the 70s called "Second Verdict".(I wasn't even a teenager 😀) They covered the Princes in the Tower, And Lizzie Borden as I remember. I wonder what folk think of that ?

Totally agree.

Regarding The Rest Is History podcast, I like it, but I only listen to it for subjects I know well. The hosts are charismatic and super knowledgable but they discuss most topics in a rambling and non-linear way that doesn’t always work for me.

In many ways I prefer Not Just The Tudors with Susannah Lipscombe. It’s more light touch, but super accessible. They introduce everything from scratch. You can come away after 40 minutes feeling you have learned a lot about a period of history you might have previously known nothing about.

Yes I agree they are a bit rambly. Do you ever listen to in our time on radio 4? That's very good

Yeah I listen to those and like them. Melvin Bragg is a bit flippant but he’s entertaining. They have some really old ones still available online so you can delve into the back catalogue.

Yes I like the guests very much, real academics! Melvyn is OK, he usually asks pertinent questions and he can be quite funny sometimes.

I love any episode with Professor Diarmid McCulloch!

I was lucky enough to have lectures from him as an undergrad. He is great.

Interesting!

I like your turn of phrase! 😂

Oh I'm very jealous! I read his book on Cromwell which was great.

As you would know from your husband’s inheritance matters, Mrs Fentiman 😂😂

Indeed - what a lot of Unpleasantness 😀

😂😂
We must lobby for the laugh emoji back!!!!!

I personally think it was Margaret Beaufort who had them killed. Nothing would stand in the way of her Henry becoming King. I remember watching the White Queen (I know its not historically accurate) and there was a line in it to Henry - 'you will have to walk past 5 coffins to get the crown' . And he did! So, yes, I think she did it! My husband has a soft spot for Richard III for some reason and wont have a word said against him 😂

@NavyTurtle when do you think Margaret Beaufort had it done? And how?

IMO a lot of “nothing would stand in Margaret Beaufort’s way of Henry becoming King” is hindsight talking/dramatic license.

In March 1483, Henry had really no chance of the throne - Edward IV had been stable on the throne for 20 odd years, had two sons who had survived early childhood, had a brother and nephews also… and would have been expected to live at least another 5-10 years, until his sons were adults. Henry would certainly not have been in a position to raise an army against EIV, and of course would not have been given a DD of EIV to marry (given he was an exile at the time, and had been for 14 odd years)

I agree that Henry Tudor would never had succeeded the throne without the support of his mother and his stepfather/stepuncle (the Stanleys) but I do not think Margaret’s one and only goal from his birth was to see
him crowned, as she is often depicted. They played their cards pretty well, when they had them, but they didn’t have cards for a long time.

TRIH is currently covering the saga of Mary Stuart/Stewart, (sometimes known as "Queen of Scots") ...

Some of the manoeuvrings around her actions in enduring her heir was primed to takeover the English crown are intriguing.

So interesting! Was recently in Scotland for the first time and there were several women whose husbands died but strong and clever women managed to keep the child alive and fight off other claimants, including MQoS mother…

I used to read a lot of DLS, can't believe I missed the reference! 🤦‍♂️

I visited Conwy Castle this morning (10/10, would recommend, though I would guess everyone on this thread has been) and was startled to discover another royal elder son who died untimely - Prince Alfonso, eldest son of Edward I, who died age 10. The thought of Edward II not becoming king is intriguing. Also I feel sad we never had a King Alfonso.

Not the oldest son

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonso,_Earl_of_Chester