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”).

I would assume that DNA beyond the surface contamination could be extracted

OP, this was mentioned on The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes (podcast) this week, John and Sherlock were doing touristy things in London. It was mentioned that Henry may have killed them himself and made it look like Richard did it. I know nothing of these people/this period but it's funny that I only just heard about it yesterday and now you're posting about it. (Haven't rtft, apols if somehow this cropped up already!)

I'm slowly working my way through Mantel's books on Henry VIII/Cromwell, I'll be combing for book recs on this period to try too. 😄

Recent analysis of the bones found in the tower suggests one set is more likely to be female. It's also possible a third individual was buried with them too. Absolutely no evidence to suggest they are even related, and no dating evidence for them. Loads of bones have been found in the Tower over the years, so they're hardly unique. They've been declared to be those of the Princes but the evidence is actually very slim.

The Sunne in Splendour is a really good book which explains some of the background to this in a way which makes sense. One thing often missed is the significance of the boys’ illegitimacy which was a big deal—once Richard discovered that the woodville marriage wasn’t legitimate it would have been impossible for him to support his nephews as kings but his previous good character etc would suggest no reason for him to kill them. Henry would have wanted to re-legitimise Elizabeth as his wife but wouldn’t want her brothers around. He’s a much more likely culprit. And yes very suspicious that no fuss is made about them until Richard is dead and can be readily blamed.

That's always the impression I got. That Henry Tudor was seen as a distant irritant for most of the time, until it became clear he had mounted an invasion. There were a few with better claims to the throne.

Not that I was there, obviously

Philippa Langley's argument is that they escaped and therefore Richard couldn't show them.

The Sunne in Splendour is a novel! It's not a factual account.

Granted it's a great read, but she takes all sorts of liberties.

If you like that kind of thing, I can recommend her Welsh trilogy too.

An article demonstrating that it was the Church of England who did not want the bones disinterred - with support from the Queen and the government - rather than the Queen herself.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under

Could you link this analysis as I haven't seen this - presumably further work on the 1933 results?

I agree, I think she would have done anything to secure the crown. She was a very tough lady, secure the throne for Henry while also putting Richard in the frame for their deaths. The Wars of the Roses were violent times.

I mean this is just a theory (a lot of this is really!) but if we're looking or reasons then I would jazard a guess that the extreme unpopularity of the Woodvilles (AKA the Queen's family) would have been at the root of a lot of it. Neither of the Princes were old enough to rule so there would have been a regency. There is not a chance on Earth Richard III and Queen Elizabeth/the Woodvilles would have happily and peacefully shared power over the young king so in effect the Woodvilles would have been ruling England.

I'd imagine this wouldn't have sat well with a lot of the old noble families who would have seen the Woodvilles as nothing but incredibly successful social climbers. Add onto that the suspisions that Queen Elizabeth and her mother Jaquetta were supsected of witchcraft and you have even more of a reason for people to not want them at the helm of England.

Henry Tudor, for all his sketchy claims, was an adult who, as a foreigner to England, would be potentially relying on the advice of these noble families to tell him how things should be done and was therefore a pretty good alternative.

People can be bought off iff you’re powerful enough. Richard wasn’t in London that much. His friends and followers were Northern men. He didn’t have much support down South

I'm surprised hardly anyone's yet mentioned Philippa Gregory's novels. The White Queen, Red Queen and White Princess all touch on this I think.

Her take on it:

Although the younger Prince was taken into custody by the Tower Sergeants, his mother managed to smuggle the older one away and replace him with a servant boy (lucky kid). Older Prince was sent to live with humble connections of his maternal grandma in Flanders.

Margaret Beaufort persuaded the Duke of Buckingham- who did have access to the Tower of London- to do away with the boys. This cleared the way for her son Henry VII to claim the throne (I think his continental allies were threatening to withdraw their support if there were contenders).

The older Prince re emerged as Perkin Warbeck, and staged an unsuccessful rebellion.

It's a good theory, and she fleshes it out plausibly in the novels.

More likely that some of the royals are not related to each other or not royal at all. That might unleash the cat amongst the pigeons.

I worked with someone once who was an only child, looked like her parents who said to her when she was younger like 18 that they had fertility treatment to have her. When they both died she had paperwork that she found - she wasn’t adopted but she wasn’t her parents biological child either. She’s still dealing with with her 10 years on and still not got full answers

There was a lot of fuss during Richard’s reign about the boys. There was open speculation they had been put to death. There was muttering about Richard’s misfortune-he lost his son and then his wife-being God’s punishment for his nephews’ murder. He was loyal to his brother but hated his wife so a convenient pre-contract was found after Edward IV’s death.

As a teenager, I loved Sharon Penman, Tey and the like but as I’ve got older and done a lot more serious reading rather than novels, it makes far more sense for it to be Richard.

@crackofdoom

Another of Philippa Gregory's novels assumes that Anne Boleyn did commit adultery.

Again, I am persuaded by Alison Weir's meticulous chronicle (The Lady in the Tower: The fall of Anne Boleyn) which details the accusations made by Cromwell matched up against times that Anne was pregnant, in confinement, yet to be churched or just plain in another part of the country than the man in question. I think that there is little likelihood of most - and probably all - of the allegations being true, but of course, it makes a good book.

I enjoy PG's books but she is a novellist first, and will pick the story over the history if she needs to do so.

I love this post.

Jacquetta of Luxembourg was an intriguing character.

This is one of my favourite subjects, have read lots of books and watched loads of documentaries about it.

Having seen the evidence found in Europe by the Richard III Society members, I believe the 2 young princes were sent from the Tower of London to Europe.

Richards' name was very much maligned by the Tudors and that narrative has continued down the line to today.

Phillipa Langley is spot on that this theory will not be accepted or even considered by academics (despite evidence). She even gives examples in her book of students presenting alternative, evidence-based theories but they are rejected and they are told that to stick to the murder story if they wish to pass the subject.

Good question. We know ( by that I mean from historians ) Beaufort and Woodville knew each other well. We know they both promoted Henry vii being King.( or rather Woodville supported Beauforts efforts) We know the Princes had been illegitamised. We know had the Princes had an existing legitimate claim it would have been better than Henry’s by far. However Henry needed support to take down Richard and by making claims he killed the Princes he had that.

( Richard was making good moves throughout the country to make it a fairer place for all do his popularity would rise if he was left in place for too long.)

So why then didn’t Woodville campaign for her boys. Perhaps because she knew she’d get a Queen out of the deal and still keep her sons alive. Perhaps.

Was she seeking sanctuary from just Richard? We don’t know for sure. Or was she seeking it from others that cut down everyone with a claim.

Wouldnt it be amazing to go back and find out the truth

Who had a better claim to the throne? I've looked and cant find them but I've probably missed some. I know Buckingham was executed his son would have only been 7 in 1485. Edward earl of Warwick again was only 10 the last earl of March was dead without issue. Who am I missing? I dont think he would have seen Henry as a minor threat. I think Richard would have been keeping tabs on him. Especially as he had already had to quash rebellions.

Henry Tudor, for all his sketchy claims, was an adult who, as a foreigner to England, would be potentially relying on the advice of these noble families to tell him how things should be done and was therefore a pretty good alternative.

Also this is a great point. In these discussions, the merits of Henry himself are often overlooked, especially given the exploits of his deranged and despotic son. The country had known half a century of turmoil and bloodshed, and there was no money (sound familiar?). Henry was no dashing warrior, he was a shrewd administrator and was financially extremely savvy. He effectively brought an end to the Wars of the Roses, and literally married the Houses or York and Lancaster, and snuffed out any potential turmoil. It seems to me that the country, apart from a couple of fairly token rebellions under Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, had had enough of fighting and just wanted to get on with it. Henry brought stability.

I know there’s supposed to be a strong argument in favour of it being Henry VII, but I don’t buy it. They were last seen alive when The Richard III was on the throne. His claim to the throne was in question as long as they were alive. In his position it was the sensible thing to do. I don’t doubt that Henry VII would have done it if they’d still been alive when he got there since they were a threat to him too. I just don’t believe Richard III would have risked keeping them alive for that long.

Henry's claim was through illegitimacy surely. They were barred from succession.

The son of Edward IV's sister Elizabeth (John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln) was one, he was in his 20s, I think.