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”).

But then why did the boys’ mother not seek the boys out after Richard’s defeat? Why would she marry Elizabeth to Henry, knowing two sons were out there? And why did she have to claim sanctuary from Richard, if she really supported and was loyal to him?

How could Norfolk’s men have got to the boys without Richard’s knowledge? They were in a heavily guarded fortress.

I’m with you OP. Definitely Richard.,

I think Richard was capable but the last thing he was was stupid. Disappearing the boys with no bodies was the worst thing he could have done.

As for Thomas More being a reliable witness, he was 7 when Richard died and wrote his account under the Tudors. Hardly reliable.

However it happened Henry benefitted and Richard didn't. I seem to recall that Henry went on to ruthlessly take out anyone who could have challenged his throne but Richard let them live in peace.

If it was Richard then it was a monumental act of stupidity as they had already been declared, and indeed were, illegitimate.

I think it’s interesting that the bones have been refused to be DNA tested. It makes you wonder if people do already know for sure who the bones are and don’t want the public to know.

“Does not have a horse” - exquisite. OP can we be friends?!

She did!! I definitely saw a programme she made last year (?) with Rob Rinder and they found contemporary documents which proved…. Drumroll….. that the boys SURVIVED! I won’t say more - I’ll try to find a link

Here you go - link to the new Rob Rinder “evidence” TV programme - https://richardiii.net/the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence/

N.B. It’s been panned by critics and im
not saying I believe it, but worth a watch

The DNA testing would at least prove that the said bodies are his nephews which would be one step forward.

I think he had their deaths arranged.

The refusal was by Westminster Abbey who always do refuse, mainly because they don't want to start a domino effect of mass disturbance of tombs within the Abbey. People say it was Elizabeth II who refused but she just said she agreed with the Church of England's decision.

There have been various documentaries on this, and even a mockup 'court case', etc.
Although I have a lot of sympathies with R III, I actually believe he ordered his flunkeys to do the deed.
He was actually away at the time (was it a royal progress ie; tour?), when the children disappeared. We know this because contemporary accounts state when the children disappeared.
Henry VII actually searched the Tower of London when he arrived, looking for them, which probably would not have happened if he knew they were definitely deceased.
I think the deed was done by the person Thomas Moore identified, who said they were buried under some satirs, where later the bones of two children were found.

I absolutely love the Richard portrayed in The Daughter of Time and think it has some fair arguments,.. however, Alison Weir persuaded me that the analysis of the bones found indicated the right ages for a death in RIII’s reign rather than HVII’s reign.

And I agree that no one other than the monarch’s servants/courtiers could have accessed the boys in the Tower, so the act is at RIII’s door. Nothing to do with More. I don’t consider RIII a monster for it either, other kings did similar!

Henry VII wouldn’t have been king though if the boys were still alive. Richard III had Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid, making the DCs of union illegitimate and unable to inherit. Henry reversed decision, so he could marry Elizabeth of York, which if her brothers were alive would make them the heirs. Got to love medieval history!

Wasn’t Buckingham another suspect in their deaths?

I always wonder why, if Richard didn’t have them killed and they escaped or even died of natural causes etc, why didn’t the news make it into the records at the time? If they’d died naturally or escaped, or even been killed by someone who wasn’t the acting king of England, surely we’d have evidence of it?

The fact that they just disappeared without any fuss is what makes me think Richard did it.

There is no evidence that the boys were not alive when Henry took over- and Richard was dead.

There were no rumours, no burials, no announcement from Henry upon arrival at the tower.
And it would have been a great bonus for Henry to announce that.

Go and read Daughter of Time with an open mind.

I studied medieval history at uni and have had a lot of time for Richard III ever since. There's much to admire about him.

But I still think that he ordered the murder of the Princes in the Tower.

I agree with a pp that episode on The Rest is History podcast is worth listening to.

Much as I love TDoT and much as it initially made me a Ricardian, it is a well researched novel from more than 70 years ago, not the last word on the subject.

Philippa Gregory’s ‘The White Princess’ suggests that Richard had nothing to gain as he had had the princes declared illegitimate whereas Henry vii/Margaret Beaufort framing Richard turned people against him.
Absolutely horrific whoever did it

Wheres the poll?

Of course you are not unreasonable. He's guilty. Its all over his face.

I totally agree with you. And that’s a great book!

Although I do think he did it, I dont think you can test or examine bones to that degree of accuracy to determine whether something happened in Richards reign or Henry's, Richard only ruled for 3 years.

Indeed, particularly as the body found under the car park was DNA tested and proved to be Richard.

Why not allow DNA testing of the bones in the tower?

Oh he so did it. And while a terrible terrible crime, as a medieval king it was almost something he had to do. Like something obvious he would do. That’s why Elizabthe sought sanctuary.

The suggestion they survived was to undermine the Tudor legitimacy but really there is no prospect that happened. Whether he actually had them physically murdered or let them die in the tower I don’t know but they didn’t come out of there alive during Richard’s reign.

Do you honestly believe that scientists can tell that someone was killed in 1483-1485 as opposed to 1485-1509 (and would have to be the early end of that)?

Really?

IIRC, it was to do with the measurements of the bones in the staircase being of a 12 and 9 year old rather than a 15 and 12 year old (might have those ages slightly wrong) - agree that if the bones were adult, three years wouldn’t be enough to differentiate