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”).

Never been. I only went to Wales for the first time a few years back taking my ds to Uni. Annoyed with myself I never did any site seeing. Literally drove from Kent and back in a day. Quite mad really.

Conwys on the list now. Thanks

Alphonso was the second son - their first was Henry who died aged 6

This is why I love history - so many left-field factors. It’s not an exact science and personalities make a difference.

I’ve always felt a bit guilty for finding the 18th century in Britain boring. I’m ashamed to say that, once Parliament got the upper hand and the monarch receded into a submissive role, history became less interesting…at least for me! 🤣😲🤭

I know that’s the WRONG attitude, but I do enjoy my Ladybird Book approach to history. Of course it’s old fashioned but it’s what started my passion for the subject. I hope children now at primary school get their first taste of history teaching through simple stories. You can do the serious critical thinking, awareness of bias stuff later, but if you don’t grab their imagination early they’ll never be interested.

3rd son

Yes, you're quite right of course, I mistyped

@Weepixie

It's complicated....but...

Philippa's main argument rested on the discovery of a document about Margaret of Burgundy (Edwards IV's sister) giving support to an armed attempt to put one of the princes (I think, Edward,the older prince) back on the English throne in 1487, when he would have been 17. The fact that she was his aunt was irrelevant though, because she left England in 1468, 2 years before he was born, so she would not have been in a position to recognise him or to confirm his identity. She may have been very keen to oust the new dynasty in favour of the Yorkists, though, so would have been motivated to help raise troops.

The programme focused on the authenticity of the document, which is one thing, and completely ignored the point above (Rob Rinder - call yourself a laywer???)

Since the programme was made another Channel 5 documentary focused on a number of fascinating and tantalising discoveries which throw light on the Princes in the Tower mystery. It was called 'Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery.

Thomas More, writing about 30 years after the event, says that Sir James Tyrell was tasked with 'disappearing' the princes and that accordingly, Miles Forest and John Dighton were dispatched to do the deed, which they did by suffocating the boys in their sleep. There have been attempts to discredit More as a Tudor propagandist, but historians agree that his account has the ring of truth about it, especially in the detail.

It's recently been discovered that when More was on one of his foreign embassies one of his servants/secretaries was the son of Miles Forest. This gives him a direct connection to the perpetrators.

And also - a will of Sir James Tyrell has been discovered in which he bequeaths the gold chain belonging to Edward V (I think he actually describes it as such) to his heirs. How else could he have obtained this if he hadn't been involved in the assassination? It might have been given to him as a reward by Richard III, or he might have just held on to it after Richard's death.

There's more but I'd better stop there! Hope this makes sense. I recommend the Channel 5 documentary!

Thanks, More's version has more backing it up than I realised, documentary here:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9aisbo

Try reading the Poldark novels, the 18th century is much more interesting than you think. Though admittedly the Hanoverians and Robert Walpole were pretty dull! The new ideas about rights and liberty, the birth of the industrial era, mass media, the French Revolution and much more!

It amazes me that people are so quick to think Thomas More would write what the Royal family wanted to hear, given how he died.

Moreover it wasn't published in his lifetime. So hardly propaganda. Not that any propaganda was needed.

Hmmm… but up until it was a choice between god and HVIII, More always chose HVIII, so loyalty to the crown is a reasonable assumption

However, some historians think that what More wrote was not necessarily intended to be a purely factual history- for example, the age he used for Edward IV in the document was the age of 53 at death when EIV was actually 40 (Henry VII was 52 at death). The ages of the princes were also wrong, though by months, not years. So it might have been intended as a musing on the dangers of tyranny rather than a pure history book.

@CoffeeCantata
but historians agree

A dangerously sweeping statement 😀

It's recently been discovered that when More was on one of his foreign embassies one of his servants/secretaries was the son of Miles Forest. This gives him a direct connection to the perpetrators.

Miles Forest (senior) died in 1484, so within a year or so of when the crime happened. His sons were probably quite young at the time (the younger one wasn’t mentioned in the pension from RIII so may have been born after his dad died). It also doesn’t seem hugely likely that MF told his wife, who then told his sons, about the Very Secret Murder.

And this is from someone who thinks RIII ordered it done 😀

Plus if the bodies they found in the tower really were the Princes (dubious) then that would be inconsistent with More's account.

It's not strong evidence, but it has more going for it than I realized.

There is a lot of interesting research about Forest and Dighton here: More on a Murder: The Deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, and Historiographical Implications for the Regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII - THORNTON - 2021 - History - Wiley Online Library https://share.google/dscymANOUOofIAj4M.
Despite the wild overuse of Miles and Edward names through the generations, it's easy to follow.

He chose Henry when they were on the same page and then they weren't. I just don't see More as being a propaganda master.

@NewAgeNewMei am currently reading the red queen by Phillippa Gregory and agree that Margaret Beaufort was the most likely person to kill so that Henry Tudor got to the throne!

This is the thread that keeps giving!!!
Thanks PP for the link to the documentary!

So she phoned Richard up and said "Can I send a couple of thugs to your prison to kill your nephews so Henry can kill you and take the throne?" and Richard replied "Fine, I've E-Mailed the guards to tell them to let your guys in. Will they be bringing their own pillows or should I provide some?"

Seems unlikely.

How did MB orchestrate it?

Not just motive - I agree she had motive, as did RIII, HVII and possibly Buckingham. But how and when?

Edward V living out his life as John Evans in a remote Devon village is a lovely story. Visited Coldridge church near Crediton last year and you definitely get sucked in. The stained glass window of Edward V is a mystery. As a pp said, dna test on the bones of John Evans would be interesting.

@columnatedruinsdomino have you read Barbara Willard’s The Sprig of Broom? You might like it :)

Great story, but totally debunked by David Starkey on YT.

Factual details are so bourgeois though ?

You don't want to be led by Phillipa Gregory's writing!

Why believe Starkey any more than any other theorists.

All theories can be debunked one way or another

@columnatedruinsdomino I find the whole stained glass and really quite magnificent church for such a small village interesting. It’s a real conundrum

We give more weight to Starkey because he’s actually a real historian. Someone who studied and did the hard stuff not someone who just ‘does their own research’.