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’m not a fan of PG’s novels but more than that it annoys me how she has tried to assert that Margaret Beaufort really did kill the Princes in the Tower, as it played out in her novel. She strikes me as a bit of a fantasist (or someone cynical enough to say anything to cash in).

So Richard finds his nephews slain, not on his command and.. does nothing? Doesn’t tell anyone? Doesn’t use it to his advantage that his enemies have killed two children? It doesn’t make sense.

Philippa Gregory’s books are pure fiction with more holes than Swiss cheese.

She was seeking sanctuary from Richard who’d arrested and murdered her brother and son.

Kinda. The Woodvilles declared a very early coronation date, but Richard actually arrived in town with EV on the day it was meant to take place (early May). Preparations continued for a mid June coronation but in the meantime, Bishop Stillington declared that EIV had been precontracted to Eleanor Talbot/Butler and so his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid and all the children illegitimate.

What did Riii have to gain? They were put aside declared illegitimate He had the crown why bother?

he would have kept them safe but out the way and shipped them off to his sister in Burgundy or similar.

If Margaret of Burgundy had the princes in her country, she would absolutely have said so, given her support for later pretenders against Henry VII.

You only have to look at his face. Guilty as hell. I think they should lock him up and throw away the key. This man should never walk free again 😡

Because as long as they were alive, they were a potential focus for rebels. Look at Lincoln’s support for Lambert Simnel (though that might have been self interest, same as Buckingham’s support for the first Tudor invasion).

The Beaufort line was declared legitimate but out of the line of succession - didn’t stop the yorkists trying to keep Henry Tudor a (comfortable) prisoner in France for many years. What has been declared can be repealed (as indeed Henry VII did with Titulus Regius to legitimise EofY)

It doesn’t though, it doesn’t answer the access question.

Also, my understanding is that there was an
attempt in July 1483 to help the princes escape the tower, but I need to check if that was from a fiction or fact book 😀

But something like that could trigger the killing of the boys, just as Edward, Earl of Warwick was fine as a prisoner, given the attainder, until Henry VII was negotiating Arthur’s marriage.

If they were safe, why didn’t Richard produce them when rumours started flying that he’d murdered them? Arguably which contributed to his demise at Bosworth.

They’d grow into men and raise armies. Armies would’ve likely been raised in their name before they were men.

OK - so RIII left London on 22 July 1483, taking Margaret's husband Stanley with him. According to Nicola Tallis's biography of Margaret, John Stow's General Chronicles of England (1615) report a plot to free the boys by setting fire to other bits of London as a distraction. On 29th July, RIII issued a warrant that seemed to refer to the people involved in this, and the boys were thereafter taken further into the tower.

Obviously 1615 is not contemporary, but any such action or suspicion could well have made RIII feel insecure about the boys continuing to live.

Adding - FWIW, Margaret was certainly in London by 6 July 1483, if not before, as she was at RIII's coronation.

Motive vs Opportunity - Henry probably had the stronger motive but Richard the stronger opportunity. I think it's very likely that they were dead well before Bosworth but possibly just died from the plague or something similar. If this happened, and Richard told everyone they were dead, would people have believed they'd died of natural causes?

I think Richard did it, murdering potential rivals wasn't all that scandalous for the time and was more or less expected as the done thing really. Something didn't go to plan which is why the deaths (with an invented cause such as sickness) weren't announced, when the rumours of them dying began it would have been too convenient to then say "oh, they died of a fever". Richard had the most to gain but so did the country, putting a child on the throne would have led to further instability and fighting whereas an adult in his prime was a safer bet. As an experienced tactician, he'd have known the value of a small sacrifice for the sake of the greater purpose.

Henry VII didn't have access, had no guarantee of gaining the throne, and would have gained more by presenting the boys alive and then using them to political advantage (e.g., marriage alliances like he did with Elizabeth).

The first written report of their deaths was written by Thomas More, so he is not going to blame Henry VIII's dad is he? History is always written by the victor's who blame the losers for the flaws.

Henry VII didn't have access, had no guarantee of gaining the throne, and would have gained more by presenting the boys alive and then using them to political advantage (e.g., marriage alliances like he did with Elizabeth).

HVII would have lost a lot by presenting them alive!

There were reported rumours in 1483.

Mancini wrote the Usurpation of RIII by December 1483. He left England shortly after RIII's coronation, so would have been reporting on rumours/info sent by his contacts.

Yes.

We can say with some certainty HVII would have killed them just as he did their cousin. The only reason he didn't was that they were killed before he arrived.

To quote Mancini:

But after Hastings was removed, all the attendants who had waited on the king were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, til at length they ceased to appear altogether. The Physician John Argentine, the last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young kin, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him.”
“I have seen many men burst into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him after his removal from men’s sight; and already there is a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether, However, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not yet at all discovered.”

She completely failed to understand the significance of the insult injury delivered to him after death. It is very clear from Mancini’s account that it was widely believed at the time that the boys were dead early in the reign and that suspicion fell on their uncle. No serious historian argues that anyone else ordered their death.

And two others writing/speaking long before More (see: thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/the-fate-of-the-princes-evidence/):

John Rous was a Warwickshire based chronicler of the Neville family. He hated Richard fiercely, and as a witness is desperately unreliable. However, for what it’s worth, Rous wrote that Richard:
“…received his lord king Edward V blandly, with embraces and kisses and within about three months or a little more he killed them together with his brother.”

Rumours spread abroad. In January 1484, the Chancellor of France said to his audience, the Estates General:
“If I were determined to rcall special proofs of your loyalty to your prince and the treachery of others, a whole day would not suffice me. It will be enough to cite as an example our neighbours, the English. Look I pray you at the events which have happened in that land since the death of King Edward. Reflect how his children, already big and courageous, have been killed with impunity, and the crown has been transferred to their murder by the favour of the people.”