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”).

The Princes mother.

It’s like the game of thrones isn’t it

The king dies and puts Richard as Lord Protector of his sons. Not his wife and not any member of the Woodville family.

The Woodville family ie All the Woodvilles want control of the Crown. The Woodvilles had become very powerful after the marriage and when Edward died unexpectsntly rushed to secure the Crown for themselves. They didn’t want Edward’s family ie Richard to control that despite Edward’s choice. So Woodville's brother took the Prince and made for London. Against Richard’s orders

They were seeking to make a claim against Edward’s wishes and so Richard had him executed for Treason.

Oh, for sure. It's a good story of how Margaret Beaufort could have had the princes done away with though.

Edward, Earl of Warwick would probably have been the heir after the Princes. He was the son of the Queen's sister but more importantly his father was George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, the younger brother of Richard III and the late King Edward IV. As you said though, there weren't really any other options.

I had missed her and her sons yes they would have been closer than Henry but they were loyal yorkists and unlikely to challenge Richard.

@DrPrunesqualer Not quite - Rivers and Grey set off for London with EV before Richard had news of EIV’s death. So they weren’t acting against his orders in doing so. I agree that their purpose was to give the Woodville side more influence though.

I am not disputing that it was sensible of Richard to execute them - it was also sensible of EW to go into sanctuary when she heard this.

Sure, but I thought the question was who had a better claim than Henry Tudor, as opposed to a better claim than RIII?

I lean towards the Margaret Beaufort theory. She was relentless in her mission to get Henry VII on the throne and I believe she was at court at the time?! Or I may have been watching too many TV adaptations which have bent the truth!
I’m kind of torn, I don’t want to believe Richard III did it but I’m not sure why!

Again closer than Henry but not really a threat to Richard as he was only a child and his father had been executed for treason.

Yes, sorry but as a way of asking who else would Richard have had to be worried about. I agree those are closer than Henry but nobody of real risk to Richard. In this way I dont think that Richard someone who had grown up with the threat of Lancaster nearly all his life would have found Henry's threat insignificant

She was relentless in her mission to get Henry VII on the throne and I believe she was at court at the time?

At which time? Summer 1483?

It wasn’t until later that year that Margaret began communicating (probably via their mutual doctor) with Elizabeth Woodville about marrying Henry to EoY. And I don’t think Margaret did particularly think the throne would come to Henry until after RIII became king - before that, she was petitioning EIV to get him out of France (and there is a draft paper indicating that EIV was considering this in 1482, given he was feeling fairly secure on the throne with two healthy sons and a bunch of daughters)

I admire Philippa Langley's enthusiasm, but she lacks the objectivity necessary to a true historian.

They were found buried under a stair, where More said they were buried. The last time they were examined, in the 1920s, there was evidence of gum disease, for which we know Edward was seen by a Dr in 1483. Any more recent "evidence" has only been gleaned from examining the 1920s photographs. I really don't think we can credit that.

She was at court and quite close to Elizabeth Woodville. There was no suspicion on her at the time.

That book is a great read but it is fiction. It's really easy to get on Richards side when you read it but it doesn't stack up against primary source, contemporary evidence.

I don’t think Riii did it. I don’t think it would be in keeping with his reputation and character as Duke of Gloucester. He had a stellar reputation - very big on law and order and justice and always 100% loyal to his brother Edward IV (the princes’ father). His first act as King was to summon the judges and tell them that in his England he expected justice to be dispensed fairly and equally for all and that a poor man was just as entitled to justice as a rich one.

I incline more to thinking neither of the princes were murdered (by Riii anyway) - he would have kept them safe but out the way and shipped them off to his sister in Burgundy or similar.

If Riii killed them why did Henry Tudor, Elizabeth Woodville (the princes’ mother) or Elizabeth of York (their sister) not denounce him for it? Once Riii was dead, they could have said what they liked but they didn’t.

In January 1484, Margaret was placed under "house arrest" in the custody of her husband, Stanley, following her role in Henry Tudor's failed October 1483 invasion (Buckingham was also involved and was beheaded in November 1483). She was sent North. So if you want her to do anything at court, it's before then, or after Bosworth, I think.

If Riii killed them why did Henry Tudor, Elizabeth Woodville (the princes’ mother) or Elizabeth of York (their sister) not denounce him for it? Once Riii was dead, they could have said what they liked but they didn’t.

If no one knew where the bodies were, then it might be a case of least said, soonest mended - could have given rise to more conspiracy theories about them being exiled etc.

Equally, why didn't RIII produce them when Mancini (IIRC) was reporting on rumours of their death in the summer of 1483, if he was in a position to do so? Edward, Earl of Warwick was around and about in the Tower at the time and for years afterwards, I believe.

I often wondered! I was a child at the time. She’d be well over 100 if she was alive now.

Why were the Woodvilles hated so much by the people? Were they just considered power and wealth grabbing upstarts?

Not sure it was by the people, but certainly by the other nobles, who were suddenly being prevailed upon to marry the relatives of the Queen, who were generally of fairly low rank and dowry.

Richard is by far the most likely culprit (although clearly impossible to prove definitively after so long, unless a smoking gun document turns up). The Daughter of Time/Henry VII theory doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. The Rest is History did a brilliant episode on the Princes in the Tower and they concluded it was Richard. Definitely worth a listen.

Of course he did!

They disappeared when they were under his control, before Henry arrived. The people of the time thought they were dead and shifted alliances accordingly before Henry rocked up.

Of course, Edward, Earl of Warwick was also a rival Prince in a tower, and Henry certainly killed him in the Tower. So the murderered princes in the Tower score is Richard: 2 Henry: 1.

I don't think we can really blame either. It was kill or be killed.

If you mean by that he didn't do it then me too.

How would they have gained access to them? The failing of any theory other than Richard killing them is the access.

The failing of any theory that they were killed after Bosworth is that, if Richard could have produced them to boys before it to prove he hadn’t killed them, he would have.

Didn’t Richard postpone the coronation and have them recorded as illegitimate? He could have sorted the coronation out swiftly for the elder one?

once they were illegitimate it would have made sense to get them away to Europe or somewhere and have them drown in a tragic accident