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”).

@MargaretThursday see my answer above. As you have urged others to read TDoT with an open mind, I urge you to read Alison Weir’s book with a similarly open mind,

Im not sure you can tell that much and that would assume that they were killed right at the beginning of his reign compared to right at the end, no one knows

He is guilty though but that is not hard evidence of that, its part of the picture.

I agree OP, Richard had motive, means and opportunity. He ordered it done. The propaganda was his- the nonsense about them being illegitimate etc.

I will say though the recent programme I saw with Rob Rinder and someone else, did cast doubt in my mind about this. I cant remember which bit of killer evidence they seemed to find that suggested it wasnt Richard but remember thinking it did cast some doubt.

God why did you have to start your own thread about this, couldn’t you join one of the other many threads popping up about this?!!

😉

Here's the episode of Noble Blood:
https://podcastaddict.com/noble-blood/episode/186370695

Yy - agree it is part of the picture - it’s the part of AW’s book that convinced me the most, but there’s a lot more in there about where the key players were on different dates etc.

Really? I thought that programme was quite pants - IIRC, it was about some relative of Tyrell’s inheriting some necklace.

I think it was definitely Richard. I loved Daughter of Time as a teenager but read it again as an adult and realised it was yet another of Tey’s weird convictions that if someone has a nice face, or brown eyes, or some other weird Victorian thing, they can’t really be a murderer. And a complete wishful misunderstanding of women’s lives and options at that time, which is pretty odd from someone who wrote so much history.

Young boys were no use to her.Henry was going to be king, best get her daughter married pronto.Totally practical as you had to be back then, no room fir sentiment.

I think he possibly did, but I don’t think he was a wrongun because I don’t think you can apply modern morality to this issue. It came towards the end of the Wars of the Roses. Their father seized power that wasn’t rightfully his, so arguably the throne was fair game. Richard was doing an excellent job running the north of England, where he was well liked for being fair and just. England deserved the kind of stability he could offer that a boy king with a contested claim couldn’t.

She was right not to. Otherwise her own bones are fair game.

The Venetian ambassador wrote home that most people in London believed that the King had eliminated his nephews, having first declared them illegitimate and so not eligible for the throne. Richard was ‘ making assurance doubly sure.’

The Venetian ambassadors were renowned for the accuracy of their reports, because the Venetian State was interested in trade ( money) , not politics.

True but they used Prince Philip's DNA to identify the Romanovs. So precedent was there.

I think it was indeed Richard, but the Venetian ambassador was reporting gossip, because the word on the street was as important as the truth, when it comes to diplomacy and trade. Possibly more important.

The Romanovs are not our royal family though. They are an extinct royal family. This was Philip’s personal decision, which doesn’t set a precedent for the treatment of English royal bodies. The discovery of the bones of Richard III was controversial enough. The people of York wanted his body to come home to the minster he was expanding before the Battle of Bosworth. His body was treated as treasure trove and reburied in Leicester, at the nearest cathedral, but only after a protracted legal case. People still care over 500 years on.

I wish the bones could be tested.
Had anyone ever tried testing the remains of John Evans?

Phillipa whatsit ??
she thinks she HAS shown it wasn’t Ricardo,
but I’m not convinced,
shes too biased !

@KenAdamswe love the museum in Leicester. We made a weekend of it, City and museum one day, then Bosworth battle site the next.

If RIII’s burial spot had been inside a church rather than on deconsecrated ground, excavating and testing the DNA would have been a lot more difficult.

If anyone hasn’t read John Ashdown-Hill’s book about tracing the mitochondrial DNA line to prove it was RIII, I thoroughly recommend it.

Have you seen the fish and chip shop in Bosworth?

The Batter of Bosworth!!!

I think she means killed them when he became king. His son (Henry viii) was certainly quite paranoid about any Plantagenet blood knocking about - often with just cause. The de la Poles were a thorn in his side.

France wouldnt have funded Henry vii if he was just going to get rid of Richard and put ed v on the throne. Henry vii wouldnt have risked taking Richard out if he thought there were two heirs waiting in the wings. Those boys were Richards insurance against others coming for him. Where as it obviously wasn't one of the big names I do think the Lancaster side arranged the deaths of those two.
Although I love the idea of the Lad in Devon less so Perkin Warbeck as it ended badly for him

It was originally the site of a small convent, but the convent went in the reformation and the land became a car park in the 20th century. It’s like the Shelley sonnet Ozymandias.

That’s what persuaded me that the ruling on RIII’s burial place was the correct one. Before that I’d been biased by my northern heritage and was rooting for York.