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”).

Me too. Philippa Langley's recent research was amazing.

Josephine Tey is a very good writer of fiction. It is a good story.
It is interesting that so little information exists about the Princes. Very few references in letters for instance. One would have expected comments from ordinary people speculating on where they were. I believe there are references to their lives before Richard took them into his protection.

Often there are many contradictory sources which cause complications of themselves.

I really like to think the boys were sent off to some rural backwater and warned, in no uncertain terms, to stay anonymous and keep away from court. But this would have been a huge risk.

It’s more likely Richard III did order their deaths. I can see why people find it hard to square this because until he seized power there wasn’t much evidence of ruthlessness. He definitely didn’t seem like a complete wrongun like his brother the Duke of Clarence. But he was obviously on a dodgy path once he imprisoned them.

Visited the battle site at Bosworth in primary school many years ago. This period of history has always fascinated me. Sadly, I don’t think there will ever be definitive proof either way. The question of who killed the princes in the tower is one of two historical whodunnits (the other being who was responsible for JFK’s assassination) that makes me wish I had a time machine!

Fair point well made.

I’m just wondering if Richard111 was on here and reading this, he’d be posting ‘should I be offended…?’ because MNetters are never quite sure if they should be or not so they always have to ask others.

Thats kind and I’m sure undeserved. I find the king memory thing really interesting. My granny had a Geordie housekeeper what was a fair bit older then her (retired but came round for tea several times a week when I was a child) so probably both before WW1. She regularly told me the royals were interlopers, that Richard III was the rightful king and that the Percy family were the true rulers of Northumberland, which was a separate kingdom in its own right. The English, Welsh and Scots are do intermingled that apparently we are all descended from Edward III and are, on average, generically the equivalent of 6th cousins, so when we look back at medieval century history we are all reading about your own family. Crazy stuff.

*long memory

Sorry - full of typos I should have double checked.

Henry Tudor was a vile liar.

@Genevieva regardless of whether or not Edward V and his siblings were illegitimate, RIII left no legitimate heir, so I wonder who your gran’s housekeeper thought should be king after him?!

@DrPrunesqualer Elizabeth Woodville was a bitter enemy of Richard. In fact, one of the reasons to support the guilt of Richard was that Edward V had been nurtured under Anthony Woodville as he was governor of his household in Ludlow. Edward V was a relative stranger to Richard and Richard’s career and fortune likely to suffer as the Woodvilles were now in the ascendant.

If you were a medieval king, who has usurped the throne it's the obvious solution.

HOWEVER... personally I'd have had them poisoned and attended to by doctors in a royal palace and claim they died of natural causes...I think Prince William is very happy that I'm not related to him😈

@DrPrunesqualer

Their mother remained loyal to Richard throughout her life and so did her daughters

Do you mean Elizabeth Woodville? Who fled into sanctuary when Richard executed her brother and older son? Who agreed that her eldest daughter should marry Henry Tudor? Those aren’t really loyal acts!

(I don’t blame EW one bit for the above)

Or did you mean RIII’s mother?

DS1 loves all this stuff and was fascinated by it but DS2 was absolutely horrified by it for years- to the point where he'd start crying if we talked about it. Turns out he'd had nightmares about it after Horrible Histories or something (he is obviously one of 2 brothers!) so we couldn't do anything remotely related for ages as he'd have a meltdown! Once he got older, we went to the Tower of London and the Leicester exhibition. After going to Leicester, I was convinced Margaret Beaufort had the boys killed, but that Phillipa Langley is an absolute nutcase, and I'm convinced only Richard could have done it.

Well since my "formidable operator" mother in law was a Beaufort, I can well believe this.

Yeah, I do wonder if the original plan was a quiet poisoning and pretence of a natural death and displaying the bodies, but something went wrong, meaning the poison left suspicious traces or was ineffective and a visibly violent method used.

Didn't he want to marry Elizabeth of York himself? Presumably he thought he'd have a few heirs there.

She's tried and it's an appalling mess. She's not a scholar. The biggest issue is access..the Tower constable would not be handing the keys over to anyone without kings orders. If I'm being charitable, I'd argue that he did it to ensure security of an adult on the throne and not a minor after the instability of the previous thirty odd years but other than that... Everyone always leaps to the Tudor propaganda argument but I feel that somewhat went awry with the discovery of the scoliosis skeleton which shows the "twisted hunchback" of Shakespeare was at least partially correct. Richard III supporters have fallen prey to a lot of romanticised rubbish in Tey and Sharon Penman's books. Good reads but not remotely credible IMHO.

No - RIII issued a denial that he would marry EoY. But certainly he would have married again if he had won bosworth, probably a foreign princess or similar. He was early 30s so certainly could have had more kids.

My comment, though, was addressed at a PP and someone’s views as of this century.

I remember on my history degree asking my (very eminent) Professor what he thought. His reply in essence was "Richard totally did it".

It’s clearly in the genes:))

Agreed. There were some fairly amusing threads at the time Richard was dug up from his car park resting place. The general consensus was that Philippa Langley is somewhat unhinged and her obsession strays well into unhealthy territory. They made a mock up of his face using his skull and Philippa gazed at it adoringly and murmured "That's not the face of a murderer" and stroked it. I'm not sure she's the most objective source.

Agreed. Also Shakespeare wrote what the Tudors wanted to hear-doesn't Thomas Moore have a hand in the history somewhere? Can't remember as I read Tey about 50 years ago. The Daughter of Time is a great book.

Why would a man using Lancastrian forces put a York on the throne when he could take it himself? And he absolutely would have risked defeating Richard regardless of York heirs as he had support from both Lancaster and York.

That’s not an argument in favour of the boys’ survival but nor is it an argument against.