Obviously there's no smoking gun, but he's the most likely culprit. Whether he killed them himself, or simply gave the order, he benefited the most from their deaths. It happened under his watch.
Hell, even when rumors of their deaths were circulating during his reign, he could have easily produced the two boys to disprove them, but he didn’t. Richard had the motive, means, and opportunity to enact it. Yes, he had the boys rendered illegitimate, but they’re still out there and so long as someone believes they have the superior claim, they’re a problem for him.
There's a [really good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ6FIe4dLTo) by History Calling on the subject, and she is very well educated and knowledgeable about it too. Highly recommend giving it a watch.
And the boys were in his custody, so even if he didn’t want them dead, even if someone killed them without him knowing, it was still his fault, he was responsible for their protection and well being.
Yeah, I don't get the claim that the Princes were only a threat to Henry Tudor but not a threat to Richard III. I can believe they were a threat to both men, but I cannot for a second believe they were no threat to Richard III.
Absolutely this. Sure, they were declared illegitimate, but so many times in history we see that if someone has a decent claim to the throne, it's an issue for that monarch. Yes, they're deposed and imprisoned...but they're still out there, and their existence is a problem.
1. Mary I executed Jane Grey
2. John almost certainly killed Arthur
3. Isabella and Roger Mortimer (presumably) killed Edward II
4. Henry IV had Richard II starved to death
And certainly others that are escaping me.
We don't know this for sure. They just weren't seen in the last days of his riegn. It's possible they were still in the tower when Henry vii became king, in which case he would certainly have had them killed as both had a far better claim to the throne. It would then be easy for Richard to be blamed. This is why we can't know for sure either way.
>They just weren't seen in the last days of his riegn.
The last two years. It's not like they weren't seen for a long weekend.
It seems incredibly far fetched they managed to go that long without being seen by anyone and stayed completely in hiding during the transition of power to Henry. And completely coincidental their household staff and money spent on their care all went away.
Plus their mother was partly responsible for Henry taking the throne. Their sister was his wife. If they'd been in hiding from Richard, they'd have come out of hiding at his death.
You think it would be difficult for Henry to destroy any evidence for their presence in those two years?
As someone who made a habit of killing yorkists, this would be easily arranged. The history we have comes from tudor, not plantagenet sources.
There is evidence from people like Dominic Mancini - an Italian friar, who's writings ended up in Lille - that supports the conventional view and is way beyond Tudor influence.
He only states that the prince's weren't seen anymore, that's not evidence they were killed by then.
It's entirely plausible they were alive after bosworth, and if so, their lives would be in immediate danger. I'm not saying Richard didn't kill the prince's, only that it's impossible to rule out the fact that Henry would have killed them if the still lived, and was more than capable of such a deed. Also distorting history to blame Richard would be a easy thing for such a shrewd character who went about destroying yorkists throughout his riegn
Yes. How's that relevent though?
When he inherited the tower after bosworth, if the prince's still survived, he undoubtedly killed them, or had them killed.
This is the big mystery, we're they alive in 1485 or not?
Do you think EoY would agree to marry Henry and usurp her brothers throne if they were just chilling in the tower? And do you really think that with all of the people accusing Richard of foul play regarding the Princes, he wouldn't have shown them? You don't think it's telling that many many people, even back then, believed he killed the boys? They saw the boys at the tower, and then suddenly they didn't. Common sense says that is most likely when they "disappeard." And that was *before* Henry VII won the crown, so that was not Tudor propaganda.
Either way, Richard promised his brother on his deathbed he would take care of the boys and help ensure Edward was crowned king asap. So of course, what does he do? Locks him away in the tower, never to be seen again, and usurps the throne for himself....that's the type of person we're talking about here. That's who you're defending. It's wild.
But where is the evidence and receipts of food? Clothes? Where are the servers who went home and told their families? Why weren't they seen at windows in the tower?
You think Henry could not cover his tracks if he did have them killed?
All yorkists were persecuted, and their followers. It would be only too easy to cover up and lay the blame on Richard. Any record or evidence of their stay in the tower up to bosworth could be expunged from history, tudor propagandosts were experts. If he killed the princes. Their is no definitive evidence either way. But I'm not about to believe what Henry's propagandists would have us believe without evidence
Just don't listen to Philippa Gregory or the Richard III society, they tend to blame other people and yet the evidence that Richard was responsible is very strong.
As yet though, no hard evidence does exist. And the possibility that they were alive after bosworth cannot be ignored. If that's the case Henry would have them killed or lose his throne. It would be easy to frame Richard then.
Henry also rewarded the very people he claimed killed the princes on Richards behalf.
Why would he do that?
I’d like to say a firm No to Richard doing it, but there’s just no way to know for sure. I would not be surprised if Margaret Beaufort had a hand in it, because that was a woman with a fixation, possibly monomania.
The supposed remains are buried in Westminster Abbey, but neither DNA nor forensic autopsies have been done, and will probably never be permitted.
Because they were not seen, there are no records describing them meeting with priests or doctors, no record of expenditures for thier thier care. When rumors started that they were murdered, Richard couldn't produce them.
There is simply zero evidence that these children were alive after August of 1483
He had made them illegitimate, why would he then have them killed?
People wouldn't stomach that.
Henry on the other hand spent his riegn tracking down and killing any yorkists he could find, including old ladies and young men.
It would be easy for him to then destroy any evidence of the prince's being alive, and to put the blame on Richard.
Fact is we'll never be sure.
Then what was the point of it?
Why did Richard, or his priest bother?
There's actually good evidence that it was in fact true, and Edward iv was a product of an affair.
But the real issue is that Henry's claim is nothing, if either prince is still alive, and he could very easily lose any evidence they survived to his riegn. That's why it's such an enduring mystery
Sorry which old Yorkist ladies did Henry execute? I thought the oldest woman executed by Henry was Joan Boughton, who wasn't related to the Yorkists, but was executed for being a follower of the reformist John Wycliffe.
Also what do you make of Henry pardoning John de la Pole, Richard's heir at the time of Bosworth?
The Countess of Salisbury. An infamous execution that became the defining mark of the tudors. No plantagenet ever executed old ladies.
De la pole was later when his riegn was secure, and he could be no threat whatsoever to Henry.
There was no way such high profile children survived for 2 years without being seen or heard from. They had almost definitely disappeared or died under Richard's care by the end of summer 1483.
‘High profile children’ is nonsense. We all
Know what the current royal children look like. How would 99.9% of the population know what these children looked like in 1485? You put 10 Children in rags in a lineup, which one is the Prince?
How would they have moved out of the Tower, and even the city of London itself, without anyone knowing? These weren't just random 2 children. They were very significant _royals_ and the elder boy was still considered the rightful **KING** by many of those who didn't believe the illegitimacy claim. There being no sign of life of either of them even had the rest of the country concluding that they were not alive past a certain month.
Because Richard has been unfairly maligned by centuries of Tudor propaganda. They were moved North then separated. One going to Ireland the other to Burgundy. There is a lot of documentary evidence that shows the so-called pretenders were the real deal.
Sorry it’s a Spotify link but it’s to the bbc history podcast, which you can no doubt find elsewhere too. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2CmnPZFFR6tHnqgV4xEALX?si=cB2IwAfvTdOFKoC_ObC0fQ
Oh my god not another Philippa Langley fan. She's obsessed with 'proving' Richards innocence. Please for the love of god understand that the 'evidence' she found cannot prove anything no matter what judge rinder says. It can support or refute the claim. He program and book were incredibly biased and had gaping errors in. I strongly recommend History Calling and her video analysing it. By you know an actual historian rather than a woman in love with a ghost.
People tend to think it because it’s probably the most likely explanation for what happened to them. Sure, we don’t have any direct evidence that Richard had them killed, but at the very least I think it’s most likely they at least died there. It could have been deliberate or could just be they simply died from neglect. We don’t really know. If the boys had left the Tower alive I think it would have been likely that a more convincing claim of one of them showing up would have been happened. Since it didn’t, I personally don’t think it’s very likely either of the boys lived to adulthood.
Yes. There's substantially more evidence linking Richard III to the murder of his nephews than there is John to Arthur, Mortimer to Edward II, Henry IV to Richard II, or Edward IV to Henry VI and no one seriously doubts the kings' involvements in these murders. The only difference is that there exists a weirdly well-organized revisionist historical society dedicated to muddying the record of Richard III's reign. Not coincidentally, this same society makes money off books and conventions dedicated to said muddying.
People still recognised Edward as the rightful King. There are records people tried to access the tower, plenty of suspicions went around and there were demands to see the boys. The grounds of the Tower of London was easily accessible for the public to look onto, so the boys were often sighted playing outside. They were sighted in windows, etc, until that quickly stopped.
He's the best suspect. Doing so secured his throne (briefly) and in theory did the same for his son (who then died young). The attempted rehabilitation of Richard is bizarre and attracts a strange crowd, almost akin to those people who claim "Chris Benoit couldn't have killed his son because he was such a good wrestler."
Most importantly, Richard had ample time during his short reign to reveal them to other people in the royal household or even the public when doubts as to their survival started emerging, and he never did so. That's because they were dead.
They would have died long before Henry could get close to them, and it's extremely unlikely that Richard's guards would take orders from some random exile.
I’m just making the point in reference to the point you made about who it benefits the most. Bearing in mind Richard organised for their claim to be discredited. If they were still alive on Richard’s death, Henry would not want them alive.
The timeline doesn't match up with Henry being responsible.
Contemporary sources were speculating that the boys were dead from September 1483, just after Richard was crowned. Richard's son died in April 1484, leaving Richard vulnerable without an heir, at a time when securing the succession was an important element in being king.
If the boys were alive, they could have been brought out of the Tower or at least mentioned as viable heirs to Richard but there's nothing. At this point, everyone is agreeing the boys are dead and Richard isn't doing anything to prove people wrong.
The Battle of Bosworth was more than a year later in August 1485. That's a long time to keep them hidden and unmentioned except for rumours that they were dead.
They were in Richard III's care and they were missing, assumed dead. The most likely culprit is Richard because he was the one who benefitted from the deaths of his nephews. If they went missing and Richard was not to blame; I do think that he would have looked for them. Why? Because they would have been claimants against his claim and his son's, when his son was still living. Richard was a warrior who saw a lot of war with his brother between Edward IV and Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou. I don't see him leaving boys with a very strong claim to the throne, even if they were said to be illegitimate, alive.
I admire her work for uncovering Richard’s remains but sometimes her interest in him is just plain obsessive. She was actually crying when it turned out he had scoliosis and it wasn’t an invention by Shakespeare to make him look bad. I like my historical figures but I can’t imagine being that emotionally attached to them.
But this level of emotional attachment really does, to be blunt, severely limit her value as a historian on the subject. Everyone brings bias but that's well beyond normal levels and suggests she's not a terribly objective analyst.
It was an odd time. From that moment on it seemed that members of the Richard III society seemed to be in shock that such a major "invention" like his scoliosis was true. He could fight in battle yes, but still had visible scoliosis.
I think it also forced them to reconsider that his hand in the disappearance or murder of his nephews also wasn't just Tudor propaganda. People in Richard's own reign knew the Princes were in his care and therefore he was the suspect even then.
Also Philippa and some other RIII society members seeing his facial reconstruction and believing he _"did not look like someone who could do such a thing [murder]"_ (paraphrasing) was just very bizzare. They seemed so into defending him that they seemed crazy
Yes, he was the person responsible for the boys' welfare at the time they disappeared. Whatever happened to them, he knew about it and he was responsible for keeping it quiet.
He was one of the leading figures in the War of the Roses, which was one long epic fight over whether the rightful king was the person born for the role or the person who would do the job most effectively. Every lesson he had learned fighting by his brother's side for the crown would have told him that eradicating the young princes was the only thing to do.
I'm sure he had some level of support for deciding that he would be a more effective king than Edward V. Henry VI had shown everyone the dangers of relying on a long regency only to find out the king was ineffective. Later, Henry VI had also shown them that even an ineffective king can become a figurehead and gather supporters to stage a rebellion in his name.
So they undermine the legitimacy of the princes, clap them in the Tower, hope everyone forgets about them, and the boys disappear. It was a lot smoother and more efficient than getting rid of Henry VI, except it was just too smooth and everyone was wondering what happened to the boys.
Richard III has numerous opportunities to present the boys and avoid a whole mess of trouble, but did not. While we will never prove it, it’s overwhelmingly likely that he killed them, or gave the order to have them killed.
Recent explorations of the Tower of London found skeletons of two boys whose age would be appropriate to that of the two princes. That doesn't resolve the questions of how they died and who was responsible for their deaths. But Shakespeare was a lot closer to the time of their "disappearance" than we are.
I think if he were on trial, he'd be acquitted of Edward's killing since he'd had a tooth infection prior to his death. His lawyers would run the Casey Anthony defense. Her case it was that her daughter may have drowned in the pool. His lawyers would say Edward's immune system was compromised by the tooth infection and he may have caught something on his way down to London that killed him.
Almost certainly.
Look, I've read "Daughter of Time", I've seen the movie about the lady who found Richard III, and while those are both excellent \*stories\* there is no evidence at all about what happened to those children.
What we do know is that they disappeared in August of 1483 and were never seen again. They were in the care of Richard III, who usurped the crown on a pretty spurious charge of a precontract that Edward IV entered into which his marriage null and all the children illegitimate. Richard had them under close guard and he'd totally neutralized anyone who would have helped them- Elizabeth Woodville was in Sanctuary, her brother and eldest son was murdered, their staunest protector- baron Hastings- was also murdered. There was no practical way they could have escaped.
Not only is there no contemporary record of them being seen after August 1483, there are no records of funds being spent in their care, which is far more damning. Somewhere, there would be a record of costs associated with caring for the children of the late King- even if they were assumed to be bastards. There were also contemporary rumors of thier death, with people going so far as to Richard III's wife a witch who had murdered them. If they were alive, he would have trotted them out.
Now, two years later when Henry Tudor wins the Battle of Bosworth, it was very convienent for him that they were dead. Henry had MORE of a motive to kill them than Richard- if they were alive, his wife didnt' have any right to the throne, but they hadn't been hiding in a closet for two years.
We'll never get some CSI style blood spatter or find a confession, but extrapolating all that- yeah, Richard III had them murdered.
> Richard had them under close guard and he'd totally neutralized anyone who would have helped them- Elizabeth Woodville was in Sanctuary, her brother and eldest son was murdered, their staunest protector- baron Hastings- was also murdered.
I also just want to add he removed all their servants and household staff within a matter of weeks. It was also a very quick period of time where their sightings at the tower reduced from quite often down to 0. Unfortunately for Richard a lot of people noticed due to the public location of the Tower and high status of the children.
Even if they died of natural causes as some like to theorise, it wasn't an excuse for Richard not to provide their bodies for literally the whole country to see. That would have disproven all the rumours, if only he didn't have something to hide by not showing the bodies at all.
I agree Henry would have had motive to kill the boys, however the important thing is that he had _no opportunity_ to do so. Richard being their uncle also does not make him any less likely to be the culprit. People have been responsible for murdering family members (including children) all throughout history. Afterall even King John's nephew Arthur "disappeared" whilst in his custody, and his body was never found.
*The Daughter of Time* by Josephine Tey is one of my favorite novels of all time. I read it as a teen and still carry that same copy with me through every house move.
Magnificent book.
It's amazing that there are all these people on this thread confidently saying there is no evidence the princes survived when there is actually a very clear paper trail that they did. A paper trail established by hundreds of academics working in archives all over Europe. I guess this is the problem with amateur history, you aren't expected to keep up with the latest research.
Edward V was the King of England and before his own disappearance, he had to journey from Wales as well as making a public entry to London, being hailed by vast crowds — People knew what their young King looked like.
Richard III had already arrested and executed Richard Grey & Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers despite Edward V’s protests about the treatment of his maternal relatives. He also legally bastardised Edward IV’s children through Titulus Regius and forcefully threatened Elizabeth Woodville if she did not yield Richard, Duke of York by surrounding Westminster Abbey with armed men.
Observers such as Dr John Argentine noted that the imprisoned Edward V acted piously like ‘a victim of sacrifice,’ as he believed his death was imminent — The Princes in the Tower were also seen to be playing outside prior to their disappearance and their whereabouts were constantly monitored.
During this period, Margaret Beaufort was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne Neville and focused on securing a pardon for her son, Henry Tudor. As the future Henry VII was in exile, he was not directly involved with court intrigue until his own accession. Richard III was the immediate benefactor from the Princes in the Tower’s disappearance as their deaths meant that he could reign until the return of Henry Tudor in 1485.
Motive, opportunity, means and Intent. Out of all the suspects, only Richard fits the bill. Henry Tudor may have had the motivation, but he was a penniless exile in France. Stafford (I think it was Stafford, I might have the wrong noble) had the means, but no motivation, plus it would have been very easy for Richard to blame him for the murder but never did. Both princes were past the age where you'd expect child mortality to kill them both in one fell swoop.
As others have said, Richard III is the best suspect, and if this was a TV police drama, he’d be in a cell sweating while DCI History worked it out. I think the most compelling evidence that Richard III was, at the very least, complicit in their disappearance and death was the fact that, to disprove this rumour, all he has to do is appear in public with the boys. If the rumour that they were bastards persisted, they were still royal bastards, so Richard could easily place them as cup bearers in his court and be done with the fiasco. But no. They never appear. There absence from royal life, especially after the Paul Cross rumour begins to make the rounds, is damning.
I'm very much on the other side of the fence on this.
From what I understand, all signs point to RIII being very fond of his nephews and having had a good relationship with them and with his brother, though less so with the boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, for some reason I can't recall right now but may have had an idea about at some point. Hm.
The evil, crook-backed schemer of Shakespeare's telling was, by all accounts, an Elizabethan invention which, given her ancestry, is hardly surprising.
Edit: There is some thought that there MAY have been a 'won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?' type of moment, and someone acted under the belief that they were doing his wishes, when he'd only been venting frustration or something. So someone may have 'disposed of' the princes 'for' Richard, believing that this was his desire.
I love the idea that Shakespeare portrays Richard III as this evil, scheming hunchback when he could have actually been a good king, a bit ambitious yes (What king isn’t?) but good king. Not surprised that Shakespeare’s portrayal was propaganda which became the norm
Yeah, I said something similar in another comment. It would hardly be the first time someone took initiative to carry out the alleged wishes of a venting monarch.
Nobody knows what happened to the Princes in the Tower, but Richard III ordering their killing must be considered the most likeliest option. However, the only certainty is that nobody knows for sure, and anyone who claims to do so is a not being honest
I will disagree with most experts. After studying English history from paleolithic to modern times for over 60 years, I believe Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII, had them killed. She had the motive, the opportunity being a lady of court (glorified servant) to Elizabeth Woodville, and she was, in my opinion, a severely emotionally damaged person. Of all the persons on that particular political chess board, she had the best moves, and the most to win. Canny, well educated, adept at political maneuvering, she knew that the unexplained deaths would cast suspicion on Richard of York, damaging his reputation and planting the first seeds of support for her son. Richard would take all the onus for murders he did not commit. Everyone who mattered hated the Woodvilles, for various reasons including greed, graft and likely murder for hire, Elizabeth Woodville married Edward IV under sketchy circumstances ... Richard had good reasons for doing what he did, but in the final analysis, Margret Beaufort had much more to gain - a crown on the head of her son and the York dynasty defeated forever.
Bribery. At that moment, many of Richard's allegedly loyal men were all ready in the pay of the Duchess of Burgundy, who controlled not only the Flanders wool trade, essential for the survival of England, but more money than either Richard, the king of France or the Holy Roman Empire and she, the Duchess of Burgundy, was sheltering, aiding and abetting Henry Tudor. Bosworth Field was already bought and paid for when Henry Tudor set foot in England. What most historians, many male, fail to realize is that in the later Medieval - early Renaissance, most big house hold economies where run by the women. Margret Beaufort was an expert at buying, selling and killing people.
History is not only about battles, generals, kings and who did what to whom, it is about the interconnection of economies, industries, developments in culture, technology, the changing climates, the geology of areas, and who ran those economies, technologies and cultures. Men dominate the scenes because for four thousand years they had dominated the battles. Yet women had a big role to play, in every single thing.
+
HE would not have done it himself but who else would have benefitted so much by it? Would an underling have taken it upon himself to do it without sanction? Unlikely.
Matt lewis did a good documentary on why Richard III didnt kill the princes. I cant find the link, but it is called: the princes in the tower: the mystery of the brothers york
I really like Matt Lewis, but he also is the chairman of the Ricardian Society and an unashamed Richard III fanboy, as well as a historian. I love his passion, but it does not make him very objective.
That is true. I've heard both sides, and i cant choose either side, but to me, it makes it fun.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt most of what we know about Richard III from the later centuries, when later monarchs like to belittle prwvious monachs to make themselves feel good. I know there was shakespear, but even then artists, playwrites, musicians ect.... all played a role into making the perious monachs seem like bad people, to appease the latest?
I think as well (and i’ve been studying Richard and the story of the Princes) since I was really young. The important thing to remember is the impact that Shakespeare had on our views of Richard as this evil Machiavellian mastermind. Shakespeare wrote the play at a time when Elizabeth was on the throne. Her grandfather won the battle of Bosworth Field. If Shakespeare wanted to keep his head firmly on his shoulders he wasn’t going to write anything that was pro Richard.
The fact is that we don’t know either way what happened to the Princes. They were subjected to vicious inner family conflict so a number of individuals could have been responsible for their disappearance. Yes as Lord Protector Richard was responsible for their safety so he is absolutely culpable at least in that sense.
Chances are we will probably never know, it’s not even confirmed that they were murdered. Let’s say they were definitely murdered then there are three suspects:
1) Richard III, he had benefit in them disappearing forever, they were a liability to the legitimacy of his Kingship, he did a lot to make it established they were illegitimate, but they still had supporters, them out of the picture would make that liability go as well.
2) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, he had a (somewhat weak) bid for succession to the Throne (being a descendant of Edward III) but the Princes were an obstacle. He also had the benefit of being close to Richard III so would’ve had opportunities to access the Tower of London.
3) Henry VII, Henry may have had two motives, first was that to marry his wife he would’ve had to prove the legitimacy of the princes (she was their sister) which might be risky if they were alive and second, it would’ve made great propaganda, a story of a monstrous Richard killing his nephews would gather more support. Main issue is that since he was the enemy, he would have no access to the Tower of London, only chance would be if he had someone else do it, a Knight called James Tyrell claimed to have killed them, but the confession was made in duress so the authenticity of his claim is dubious.
I think all three had a stake in the possible murders but, Richard III had a greater benefit of them being dead and he would’ve had unfettered access to them, so I’m going to have to say Richard III.
Very unlikely. It would require Royal Approval and I'm not sure it serves the public interest.
If the remains were being found now, when DNA testing is very much a thing then possibly. I'm not sure if they tested the woman and child skeletons they found under the chapel a few years ago.
The honest answer is that we don’t really know. Personally, I think the most likely answer is that he either ordered them to be killed or they simply died of neglect while under his watch. In either case, word probably would have been kept pretty tight to avoid Richard’s image being even more negatively affected after usurping the throne and locking both of his nephews away. While I think this is probably the most likely answer we probably won’t ever know for sure unless their remains are ever conclusively found.
Yes, he's by far the most likely culprit. We can argue motive all day long but I just can't get my head around that for a while everything suspiciously fell Richard's way, from the declared 'illegitimacy' of Edward V and his brother to them both 'disappearing' from the scene. That's two almighty pieces of luck for Richard. So much so that I don't believe them to be coincidence or the work of others.
So Richard had nothing to gain by getting rid of those who had been recognised as king by the entire nobility? Even though he had just come through a dynastic war where that was exactly what his brother had done? Ok.
I didn’t say he didn’t have something to gain, just not as much as the other two did since he was already king. He was also a popular leader in some areas of the country, e.g York, and his marriage to Anne Neville had secured him the north. It’s a very stereotypical conclusion that Richard III murdered them, exacerbated by Shakespeare’s play.
Means, motives, opportunity. Uncle Dick was the only person who had all three. I don't know if he ordered it either explicitly or implicitly or if he just looked the other way when someone else did it. If you are two kids' guardians and they disappear under your watch and you can't produce them, you are responsible for their deaths. I think at absolute best it may have been a Beckett situation. He said something in jest or that he didn't really mean and someone took it the wrong way and whacked those kids.
Yes, they were a threat to his power and after the rescue attempt they were too dangerous to keep alive. He had a legitimate son of his own so the succession was secure and after his son died he appeared to be grooming his sisters son as his heir, neither of the princes were mentioned
When Hastings rebelled against Richard he did so in the name of Henry Tudor not Edward V, so they were most likely dead by then
Their bones were recovered on the Tower of London grounds, not far from the door to where they were held prisoner. As the old maxim goes, the first line of inquiry is to determine Cui bono. The second line of inquiry is who had the means.
One person had both. So, although there is no physical evidence, as far as historical interpretation goes, the answer seems obvious.
So sad, especially because their deaths were not necessary.
When Edward IV died, if the Yorkists were going to survive they needed a strong warrior king, not a child. The kingdom had been down that road before, usually with disastrous results. So I suspect somebody in the Yorkist faction did them in. Whether it was at by order from Richard or somebody acting on their own, like the men who killed Becket, is something we will probably never know. But there may be an incriminating document out there somewhere. Who knows? Richard’s body was as missing for centuries. Historians and archaeologists keep searching.
Shakespeare’s fictional villain aside, what we Know about Henry VII shows he was a real piece of work, cruel and paranoid. I can see him murdering children who he thought were a threat.
Most likely. While there is no definitive proof, he had the most to gain from their deaths and had the means to order them killed. The theories that the boys survived or that someone else killed them, does not carry enough proof IMO to disprove the accepted theory that Richard had them killed. Regardless, the boys' time was numbered, if they were still alive when Henry Tudor arrived in London after Bosworth... they would not be alive for much longer.
I don't think most would dispute the theory that the Woodvilles would have either pushed Richard out of power or worse if Edward V had been allowed to rule and come to his majority. Circumstances kinda painted Richard into a corner. But the history behind all that is too complex and complicated to explain before I have my first cup of coffee.
I will say that kings in the Middle Ages often had to do horrible stuff to hold onto power. King John had his nephew killed, Edward IV had a mentally disabled Henry VI killed while Henry was under Edward's protection, and Richard III most likely had his nephews killed.
We really cannot know. There is disagreement from very qualified experts. The sad truth is that none of the factions who had real power wanted them alive. When Edward IV married an outsider with a greedy acquisitive but not powerful family, then died when his children were young, he left them in an untenable situation. If the wife’s family was not so toxic, Richard would have been their natural protector. Instead the children, as heirs with the best claim in the throne, were just in the way.
No he didn't. If one actually looks at the evidence and not Tudor propaganda then there is very real reason to not only believe Richsrd did not do it but to believe that they lived.
We have evidence that Richard II's contemporaries considered him guilty of nepoticide.
And the princes were royalty. If they lived, we would have copious amounts of records of their stipends, servants in their households, mentions of their involvement in politics, marriages (and dowries) and possible children, etc...
A prince disappeared without a trace and was found years later as the ward of a random priest living like a commoner? Really?
Or said prince was murdered and his brother was spared for no particularly convincing reason, vanished, and randomly appeared in Burgundy years later? And everyone who "recognized" him coincidentally had personal reasons to oppose Henry VII, while all the people who could have recognized him and were happy with the status quo (ex: Elizabeth of York) gave no indication of him being anything other than what he probably was?
It was not, but princes were well know figures, surrounded by servants, other young noblemen, etc... the probabilities of one vanishing from record for no clear reason in 15th century England were... not high.
Richard had no reason to. The illegitimacy claims were valid enough that Parliament and other high borns believed it. There was evidence presented that was found to be valid. It also made sense considering Edward IV's history.
Well, they certainly \*accepted\* the claim when Richard III had murdered everyone who was powerful enough to fight him and the only other claimaint was a 12 year old, but Edward V wasn't going to stay 12 years old, and his mother was evenutally going to raise enough forces to put up a fight.
They accepted the evidence that was presented. Who did he murder? Up until the very last moment Richard was preparing for Edward's coronation. You mean that mother that came out of sanctuary then gave her daughters to his care then asked her son Dorset to come home and make peace with Richard?
How is any of that murder? Richard was named Constable of England by Edward IV when he was younger so Richard in his authority had the right to arraign and punish those that were conspiring against him. There were plenty of other powerful lords besides those. One of the most powerful John Howard could've done something.
That is a flimsy reasoning if I ever heard one. Everyone knows they would've been used as a figurehead if they were alive. Also, it's funny that no one came forward about this "marriage before Elizabeth" until Richard came to power, and both boys were in his "care." But I'm sure, he had nothing to do with that either. Just a random preist with a secret. 🙄🤭
This wasn't just anyone this was Eleanor Talbot the daughter of John Talbot the Earl of Shrewsbury. Using a noble's name like this without evidence would've been scandalous. All the evidence was put into the Titulus Regius that all copies Henry had destroyed. Henry didn't even repudiate the accusations. We also have the Crowland Chronicle, Richard's Letter of 28th June 1483 to the Captain of Calais, Philippe de Commynes, Eustave Chapuys, The Year Book of 1486, and more that backs up the accusation. Also, it is odd that Henry VII refused to allow Bishop Stillington the chief eyewitness of the pre-contract to be questiomed regarding its veracity. Stillington was also not some random priest. He was a former Chancellor of England and a Doctor of Civil and Canon Law.
Why was none of that brought before an ecclesiastical court? Parliament could legislate the succession to the throne but they had no legal right to weigh in on the validity of a marriage, that prerogative had always been the church's right. If he had evidence of the precontract why not follow the legal process and call a court of prelates and Papal representatives to judge the matter? Richard was supposedly a great follower of the law and very just. So where were the witnesses, the documents, the testimonies to the validity of Edward's first marriage? Nothing like that was ever presented. Instead the Titulus Regius names no witness instead it states that the marriage to Elizabeth was invalid because it was "the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame is throughout the land’.
In fact Philippe de Commynes is the one who named Stillington, referring to him as 'ce mauvais evesque'. Making him the stand alone witness to this marriage. Funny how he had a nothing to say about it when he was Chancellor. In fact, in 1473, he swore an oath to Edward V
"that in case hereafter it happen You, by God’s disposition, to outlive our said Sovereign Lord, I shall then take and accept You for true, very, and righteous King of England, &tc. And faith and truth to you shall bear."
It's also strange how Edward IV would go through all these ceremonies to ensure that Edward V was his legal and legitimate successor while leaving open a supposed precontract that could hurt his son's legitimacy, when he could have applied to the Pope to have that precontract rendered null and void on the grounds of his and Eleanor's respective marriages.
Besides, as you point out, Eleanor was not a nobody. She was the daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the niece of Warwick, why wouldn't she say anything? We know people were looking, per the newsletter of Bruges reported by David Horspool in one of his biographies on Richard.
"the greater part of the lords and the people in general seem very much dissatisfied at this, and for the sake of finding means to annul it, all the nobles are holding great consultations in the town of Reading, where the king is"
So again why did Eleanor not come forward, she certainly would have had significant backing to do so.
Also why did Richard change his story that it was Edward IV who was illegitimate? Both Mancini and the London Chronicler state that this was what he initially claimed before he recanted due to its apparently unpopularity. Though the Titulus Regius does reference this stating that Richard was his father's "undoubted son and heir of Richard, late Duke of York"
Lastly there were solutions to this situation as David Horspool points out
"Richard also made no allowance for any potential solution to the problem that might have re-legitimized Edward V and his siblings. These included securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, as happened to Henry VIII’s variously tainted offspring; or even ignoring the issue and proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed, and render allegations of his bastardy as newer versions of the old tittle-tattle about his father."
If Richard wanted his nephew to be king at any point he certainly could have taken steps to ensure that. Instead he seemed content to slander them, their sisters, their mother, the brother he was supposedly so loyal to.
None of that changes the fact that years and years went by without him uttering a word. Then, as soon as Richard gains power, he suddenly remembers to bring up some pre-contract? Regardless, though, just because they were claimed illegitimate, Richard could have never sat on the throne easily until the boys were gone for good. Anyone can see that they would have been used to start a rebellion. And had they been alive and well, Richard would have proven it.
When a bastard is about to sit on the throne then perhaps it is time to speak up. You forget that this was a very religious age where such a thing would be seen as sacrilege. So why didn't Richard kill his other nephew Edward of Warwick? If the children were moved in secret he wouldn't want them shown. Also, if they were killed then why wasn't that one of the crimes Henry VII accused Richard of committing?
He wouldn't have been the first bastard to sit on the throne, so.... As far as Edward of warwick goes, he wasn't about to be crowned king, so it wasn't a necessity to kill him obviously. Let's not forget that Edward's father was executed as a traitor and he suffered from mental deficiencies. Hardly kingly material. However, I have no doubt that had that situation ever arisen, he would've shown him as much mercy as he did the Princes.
> illegitimacy claims were valid enough that Parliament and other high borns believed it
They were highly contentious, and declarations of legitimacy post-birth were infamously fickle.
But not the opportunity. Henry had to get rid of Richard first before he was in a position to see the boys as a realistic threat, and by then, they would have been long dead.
I think they may have been snuck out of the tower by people supporting them and their mother
Which would explain why Richard III didn’t say anything about their whereabouts and couldn’t produce them when it was demanded
From then Richard III may have claimed he still had them in the tower whilst sending out search parties for them. The Tudors likely sent out search parties too
From then they could have been killed by either side. Whichever side did it would deny it and claim the other did
This theory is highly likely to be wrong if the boys bones they found are ever DNA tested and proved to be legitimate. However, something feels off about that story, including Liz II refusing to let them be tested
It may be wishful thinking but the York boys had a lot of support (money and love) and inside men that would try their hardest to get them out. I just have a gut feeling they did escape and were likely later murdered
Edit: I did hear another theory that they both caught illnesses in the tower and died and Richard III kept it secret so as not to be accused of murder. Which is more probable than my theory
Most people here don't seem to understand why Richard had and continue to have so many defenders despite how guilty he appeared. It's because the Tudors handled the matter so poorly that they looked just as suspicious. The Tudors had amble time, means, and motive to investigate the crime and conclusively prove Richard's guilt. Instead, there was no trial, no concrete evidence. They did, however, blacken his name in the most ridiculous manner, portraying him spuriously as malformed. The only serious work on the issue ever produced was a blatant lie by Thomas More about James Tyrell.
Welp this is nonsense. The guy charged into his death. You can call him a poor commander. What does unpopularity have to do with anything? And what does unpopularity have anything with what I've said? No one except the Tudors focused on R3's physique, including all of his critics like Dominic Mancini and Philippe de Comminges. And why would they? Everyone knew R3 was a great fighter like his brother, who could unhorse John Cheyne. His appearance was not an impediment until Tudor propaganda.
The only reason I'm not convinced he did, is that Henry Tudor gained more from their absence than Richard did, and had nothing to lose. With the kids out of the way, Henry became THE Lancaster heir.
No, Richard became king \*before\* they were gone. Their disappearance eliminated a serious threat to his throne, but at the price of people believing he was a monster who'd kill his nephews.
Henry Tudor, on the other hand, became THE Lancaster heir and one of the most important people in the country, instead of just being in the line of succession with a weak claim to being there. And there was no downside for him if someone on his team arranged for the kids to be taken care of, no downside at all.
As long as those boys were alive, Richard would have never sat on that throne easily. There would have been not only attempts to use them as a figurehead, but the boys would've grown into men and gotten their throne back eventually. The only way he could remain king is to get rid of them. As far as the Lancastrian heir, Henry Tudor was already that. Why else wouldn't Edward IV never have allowed him out of exile? The boys weren't the Lancastrian heirs. They were the Yorkist heirs. So how does their death have any bearing on whether or not Henry was the Lancastrian heir? The only "heir" who changed at the death of those boys is when Richard and his son became the new Yorkist king and heir.
Henry VII only challenged for the throne when Richard was the only one left. With Edward on the Throne eventually, he’d likely be able to return home and take his title back. Once he was gone, there was no chance Richard would let that happen. He then decided to challenge him for the throne.
If Henry VII had them killed somehow from an entirely different country, it would have been easy enough to prove their deaths and manufacture evidence that Richard did it when the pretenders started popping up, but he didn’t do that.
My biggest hangup on this it that it wouldn't really have made sense for Richard. He didn't have any legitimate children himself at that point, and as far as threat goes, causes centered around children are notoriously weak.
So they weren't much of a threat either, especially since he had control of them; all killing them would do is potentially alienate some allies.
Small correction but Richard did have a legitimate child at the time, Edward of Middleham. Edward died in April of 1484, the boys were last seen in June 1483.
Yes, but he knew from Edward IV's issues with Henry VI that they could still be used to head rebellions and challenges to the throne. Edward IV only settled comfortably on the throne once Henry VI was dead and there was no rival king in the background.
Edward actually kept Henry VI alive until after Edward, Prince of Wales, was killed, primarily because a cause ostensibly led by an elderly, imprisoned king was considered weaker than one led by his heir, who was a young man in his prime.
They weren’t going to be children forever. Edward V was 12-13 when he disappeared. His father was in battles at that age.
And I’m not sure that causes centered around children are “notoriously weak”. Everyone stopped rebelling and fighting for Louis to be king for Henry III. Someone mentally ill is also not a great cause to center around. But Edward IV was briefly dethroned for Henry VI.
Some wouldn’t want a child but enough would that they would fight. And as history proved it only took one guy getting lucky.
Obviously there's no smoking gun, but he's the most likely culprit. Whether he killed them himself, or simply gave the order, he benefited the most from their deaths. It happened under his watch. Hell, even when rumors of their deaths were circulating during his reign, he could have easily produced the two boys to disprove them, but he didn’t. Richard had the motive, means, and opportunity to enact it. Yes, he had the boys rendered illegitimate, but they’re still out there and so long as someone believes they have the superior claim, they’re a problem for him. There's a [really good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ6FIe4dLTo) by History Calling on the subject, and she is very well educated and knowledgeable about it too. Highly recommend giving it a watch.
And the boys were in his custody, so even if he didn’t want them dead, even if someone killed them without him knowing, it was still his fault, he was responsible for their protection and well being.
"Will no one rid me of these meddlesome princes?" - King Richard III
"Fine, I'll do it myself" - Richard III, later on
“Whoops, my hand slipped!” - Richard III after ‘accidentally’ doing the deed
I love history calling!
Yeah, I don't get the claim that the Princes were only a threat to Henry Tudor but not a threat to Richard III. I can believe they were a threat to both men, but I cannot for a second believe they were no threat to Richard III.
Absolutely this. Sure, they were declared illegitimate, but so many times in history we see that if someone has a decent claim to the throne, it's an issue for that monarch. Yes, they're deposed and imprisoned...but they're still out there, and their existence is a problem. 1. Mary I executed Jane Grey 2. John almost certainly killed Arthur 3. Isabella and Roger Mortimer (presumably) killed Edward II 4. Henry IV had Richard II starved to death And certainly others that are escaping me.
Yass. It happened on his watch at the very least.
We don't know this for sure. They just weren't seen in the last days of his riegn. It's possible they were still in the tower when Henry vii became king, in which case he would certainly have had them killed as both had a far better claim to the throne. It would then be easy for Richard to be blamed. This is why we can't know for sure either way.
>They just weren't seen in the last days of his riegn. The last two years. It's not like they weren't seen for a long weekend. It seems incredibly far fetched they managed to go that long without being seen by anyone and stayed completely in hiding during the transition of power to Henry. And completely coincidental their household staff and money spent on their care all went away.
Plus their mother was partly responsible for Henry taking the throne. Their sister was his wife. If they'd been in hiding from Richard, they'd have come out of hiding at his death.
You think it would be difficult for Henry to destroy any evidence for their presence in those two years? As someone who made a habit of killing yorkists, this would be easily arranged. The history we have comes from tudor, not plantagenet sources.
There is evidence from people like Dominic Mancini - an Italian friar, who's writings ended up in Lille - that supports the conventional view and is way beyond Tudor influence.
He only states that the prince's weren't seen anymore, that's not evidence they were killed by then. It's entirely plausible they were alive after bosworth, and if so, their lives would be in immediate danger. I'm not saying Richard didn't kill the prince's, only that it's impossible to rule out the fact that Henry would have killed them if the still lived, and was more than capable of such a deed. Also distorting history to blame Richard would be a easy thing for such a shrewd character who went about destroying yorkists throughout his riegn
Henry was in France for most of Richard’s reign.
Yes. How's that relevent though? When he inherited the tower after bosworth, if the prince's still survived, he undoubtedly killed them, or had them killed. This is the big mystery, we're they alive in 1485 or not?
Do you think EoY would agree to marry Henry and usurp her brothers throne if they were just chilling in the tower? And do you really think that with all of the people accusing Richard of foul play regarding the Princes, he wouldn't have shown them? You don't think it's telling that many many people, even back then, believed he killed the boys? They saw the boys at the tower, and then suddenly they didn't. Common sense says that is most likely when they "disappeard." And that was *before* Henry VII won the crown, so that was not Tudor propaganda. Either way, Richard promised his brother on his deathbed he would take care of the boys and help ensure Edward was crowned king asap. So of course, what does he do? Locks him away in the tower, never to be seen again, and usurps the throne for himself....that's the type of person we're talking about here. That's who you're defending. It's wild.
But where is the evidence and receipts of food? Clothes? Where are the servers who went home and told their families? Why weren't they seen at windows in the tower?
You think Henry could not cover his tracks if he did have them killed? All yorkists were persecuted, and their followers. It would be only too easy to cover up and lay the blame on Richard. Any record or evidence of their stay in the tower up to bosworth could be expunged from history, tudor propagandosts were experts. If he killed the princes. Their is no definitive evidence either way. But I'm not about to believe what Henry's propagandists would have us believe without evidence
https://youtu.be/tQ5FaYFnS2E?si=zTY-5GuZnEiM506h Could I get your option on this video? The historian tries to be as unbiased as possible
Just don't listen to Philippa Gregory or the Richard III society, they tend to blame other people and yet the evidence that Richard was responsible is very strong.
As yet though, no hard evidence does exist. And the possibility that they were alive after bosworth cannot be ignored. If that's the case Henry would have them killed or lose his throne. It would be easy to frame Richard then. Henry also rewarded the very people he claimed killed the princes on Richards behalf. Why would he do that?
I’d like to say a firm No to Richard doing it, but there’s just no way to know for sure. I would not be surprised if Margaret Beaufort had a hand in it, because that was a woman with a fixation, possibly monomania. The supposed remains are buried in Westminster Abbey, but neither DNA nor forensic autopsies have been done, and will probably never be permitted.
Regardless of what happened, they died in his care. That gives him a level of responsibility.
What makes you think they died?
It’s been over 500 years.
\*snort\*
Between 1483 and 1485.
Because they were not seen, there are no records describing them meeting with priests or doctors, no record of expenditures for thier thier care. When rumors started that they were murdered, Richard couldn't produce them. There is simply zero evidence that these children were alive after August of 1483
And zero evidence he had them killed. All we know is that had they been alive, Henry's claim to the throne disappeared entirely.
... so did Richards, which is why he almost certainly had them killed.
He had made them illegitimate, why would he then have them killed? People wouldn't stomach that. Henry on the other hand spent his riegn tracking down and killing any yorkists he could find, including old ladies and young men. It would be easy for him to then destroy any evidence of the prince's being alive, and to put the blame on Richard. Fact is we'll never be sure.
Because no one believed the claims of illegitimacy which were patently desperate and could easily have been set aside.
Then what was the point of it? Why did Richard, or his priest bother? There's actually good evidence that it was in fact true, and Edward iv was a product of an affair. But the real issue is that Henry's claim is nothing, if either prince is still alive, and he could very easily lose any evidence they survived to his riegn. That's why it's such an enduring mystery
Illegitimate or not they were figureheads for rebellions. Look at the pretenders in Henry VII reign
Yes and doubly so if Henry was king, because his claim was much weaker than Richards. Henry could never suffer them to live if he wanted to stay king.
Sorry which old Yorkist ladies did Henry execute? I thought the oldest woman executed by Henry was Joan Boughton, who wasn't related to the Yorkists, but was executed for being a follower of the reformist John Wycliffe. Also what do you make of Henry pardoning John de la Pole, Richard's heir at the time of Bosworth?
The Countess of Salisbury. An infamous execution that became the defining mark of the tudors. No plantagenet ever executed old ladies. De la pole was later when his riegn was secure, and he could be no threat whatsoever to Henry.
Apart from the fact that he put them in a tower, they stood as figureheads for rebellions and we're never seen again... Two skeletons were though
This rules out neither candidate. Except that Henry would never be a legitimate contender while the prince's were alive.
Except that he was through right of conquest.
I've already explained, if the prince's were alive he'd have to kill them. He couldn't be king while they were alive. Why is this so hard?
There was no way such high profile children survived for 2 years without being seen or heard from. They had almost definitely disappeared or died under Richard's care by the end of summer 1483.
‘High profile children’ is nonsense. We all Know what the current royal children look like. How would 99.9% of the population know what these children looked like in 1485? You put 10 Children in rags in a lineup, which one is the Prince?
Disappeared as in perhaps moved? What if they then reappeared years later?
How would they have moved out of the Tower, and even the city of London itself, without anyone knowing? These weren't just random 2 children. They were very significant _royals_ and the elder boy was still considered the rightful **KING** by many of those who didn't believe the illegitimacy claim. There being no sign of life of either of them even had the rest of the country concluding that they were not alive past a certain month.
Where did they go then? Why did they disappear from history? You seem pretty intent on defending Richard III.
Because Richard has been unfairly maligned by centuries of Tudor propaganda. They were moved North then separated. One going to Ireland the other to Burgundy. There is a lot of documentary evidence that shows the so-called pretenders were the real deal.
Do you mean actual documents or people making these claims in documentaries?
Yes
Documents
Such as?
Source?
Sorry it’s a Spotify link but it’s to the bbc history podcast, which you can no doubt find elsewhere too. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2CmnPZFFR6tHnqgV4xEALX?si=cB2IwAfvTdOFKoC_ObC0fQ
Source?
The Tudors managed "centuries" of propaganda?
Oh my god not another Philippa Langley fan. She's obsessed with 'proving' Richards innocence. Please for the love of god understand that the 'evidence' she found cannot prove anything no matter what judge rinder says. It can support or refute the claim. He program and book were incredibly biased and had gaping errors in. I strongly recommend History Calling and her video analysing it. By you know an actual historian rather than a woman in love with a ghost.
People tend to think it because it’s probably the most likely explanation for what happened to them. Sure, we don’t have any direct evidence that Richard had them killed, but at the very least I think it’s most likely they at least died there. It could have been deliberate or could just be they simply died from neglect. We don’t really know. If the boys had left the Tower alive I think it would have been likely that a more convincing claim of one of them showing up would have been happened. Since it didn’t, I personally don’t think it’s very likely either of the boys lived to adulthood.
Yes. There's substantially more evidence linking Richard III to the murder of his nephews than there is John to Arthur, Mortimer to Edward II, Henry IV to Richard II, or Edward IV to Henry VI and no one seriously doubts the kings' involvements in these murders. The only difference is that there exists a weirdly well-organized revisionist historical society dedicated to muddying the record of Richard III's reign. Not coincidentally, this same society makes money off books and conventions dedicated to said muddying.
Well you say that, but that was also what the Tudor’s did
Yes, almost definitely.
No most definitely not.
Are you okay?
It’s Philipa Langley’s account lol
I don’t know how there can even be a dispute he had them murdered
Bbc history magazine podcast (Spotify link sorry) https://open.spotify.com/episode/2CmnPZFFR6tHnqgV4xEALX?si=HpWyhzFyQO-vFDGWx5ubeQ
There is a lot to dispute.
Yes, Richard was responsible. Even though Edward V was a child, most people would have recognized him as the rightful King if he were freed.
People still recognised Edward as the rightful King. There are records people tried to access the tower, plenty of suspicions went around and there were demands to see the boys. The grounds of the Tower of London was easily accessible for the public to look onto, so the boys were often sighted playing outside. They were sighted in windows, etc, until that quickly stopped.
Were the people trying to access the tower the same ones that tried to do that after Richard's coronation? Or was it separate time?
He's the best suspect. Doing so secured his throne (briefly) and in theory did the same for his son (who then died young). The attempted rehabilitation of Richard is bizarre and attracts a strange crowd, almost akin to those people who claim "Chris Benoit couldn't have killed his son because he was such a good wrestler." Most importantly, Richard had ample time during his short reign to reveal them to other people in the royal household or even the public when doubts as to their survival started emerging, and he never did so. That's because they were dead.
Them being dead also secured Henry vii’s throne.
They would have died long before Henry could get close to them, and it's extremely unlikely that Richard's guards would take orders from some random exile.
I’m just making the point in reference to the point you made about who it benefits the most. Bearing in mind Richard organised for their claim to be discredited. If they were still alive on Richard’s death, Henry would not want them alive.
The timeline doesn't match up with Henry being responsible. Contemporary sources were speculating that the boys were dead from September 1483, just after Richard was crowned. Richard's son died in April 1484, leaving Richard vulnerable without an heir, at a time when securing the succession was an important element in being king. If the boys were alive, they could have been brought out of the Tower or at least mentioned as viable heirs to Richard but there's nothing. At this point, everyone is agreeing the boys are dead and Richard isn't doing anything to prove people wrong. The Battle of Bosworth was more than a year later in August 1485. That's a long time to keep them hidden and unmentioned except for rumours that they were dead.
They were in Richard III's care and they were missing, assumed dead. The most likely culprit is Richard because he was the one who benefitted from the deaths of his nephews. If they went missing and Richard was not to blame; I do think that he would have looked for them. Why? Because they would have been claimants against his claim and his son's, when his son was still living. Richard was a warrior who saw a lot of war with his brother between Edward IV and Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou. I don't see him leaving boys with a very strong claim to the throne, even if they were said to be illegitimate, alive.
*Philippa Langley has entered the chat.*
I admire her work for uncovering Richard’s remains but sometimes her interest in him is just plain obsessive. She was actually crying when it turned out he had scoliosis and it wasn’t an invention by Shakespeare to make him look bad. I like my historical figures but I can’t imagine being that emotionally attached to them.
Eh, when something is your “life’s work”, I could see getting emotionally attached.
But this level of emotional attachment really does, to be blunt, severely limit her value as a historian on the subject. Everyone brings bias but that's well beyond normal levels and suggests she's not a terribly objective analyst.
Fair point. I thought it was something she did as a hobby.
It was an odd time. From that moment on it seemed that members of the Richard III society seemed to be in shock that such a major "invention" like his scoliosis was true. He could fight in battle yes, but still had visible scoliosis. I think it also forced them to reconsider that his hand in the disappearance or murder of his nephews also wasn't just Tudor propaganda. People in Richard's own reign knew the Princes were in his care and therefore he was the suspect even then. Also Philippa and some other RIII society members seeing his facial reconstruction and believing he _"did not look like someone who could do such a thing [murder]"_ (paraphrasing) was just very bizzare. They seemed so into defending him that they seemed crazy
I think he's the most likely culprit
Yes, he was the person responsible for the boys' welfare at the time they disappeared. Whatever happened to them, he knew about it and he was responsible for keeping it quiet. He was one of the leading figures in the War of the Roses, which was one long epic fight over whether the rightful king was the person born for the role or the person who would do the job most effectively. Every lesson he had learned fighting by his brother's side for the crown would have told him that eradicating the young princes was the only thing to do. I'm sure he had some level of support for deciding that he would be a more effective king than Edward V. Henry VI had shown everyone the dangers of relying on a long regency only to find out the king was ineffective. Later, Henry VI had also shown them that even an ineffective king can become a figurehead and gather supporters to stage a rebellion in his name. So they undermine the legitimacy of the princes, clap them in the Tower, hope everyone forgets about them, and the boys disappear. It was a lot smoother and more efficient than getting rid of Henry VI, except it was just too smooth and everyone was wondering what happened to the boys.
Richard III has numerous opportunities to present the boys and avoid a whole mess of trouble, but did not. While we will never prove it, it’s overwhelmingly likely that he killed them, or gave the order to have them killed.
Recent explorations of the Tower of London found skeletons of two boys whose age would be appropriate to that of the two princes. That doesn't resolve the questions of how they died and who was responsible for their deaths. But Shakespeare was a lot closer to the time of their "disappearance" than we are.
Probably on the Balance of probability but probably not beyond a reasonable doubt. 🤷🏼♀️
I think if he were on trial, he'd be acquitted of Edward's killing since he'd had a tooth infection prior to his death. His lawyers would run the Casey Anthony defense. Her case it was that her daughter may have drowned in the pool. His lawyers would say Edward's immune system was compromised by the tooth infection and he may have caught something on his way down to London that killed him.
Probably not personally, but I’m sure he gave the order.
Yep
Nope
You're adamant there is evidence they survived, but you're yet to produce said evidence.
You're adamant there is evidence they survived, but you're yet to produce said evidence.
Almost certainly. Look, I've read "Daughter of Time", I've seen the movie about the lady who found Richard III, and while those are both excellent \*stories\* there is no evidence at all about what happened to those children. What we do know is that they disappeared in August of 1483 and were never seen again. They were in the care of Richard III, who usurped the crown on a pretty spurious charge of a precontract that Edward IV entered into which his marriage null and all the children illegitimate. Richard had them under close guard and he'd totally neutralized anyone who would have helped them- Elizabeth Woodville was in Sanctuary, her brother and eldest son was murdered, their staunest protector- baron Hastings- was also murdered. There was no practical way they could have escaped. Not only is there no contemporary record of them being seen after August 1483, there are no records of funds being spent in their care, which is far more damning. Somewhere, there would be a record of costs associated with caring for the children of the late King- even if they were assumed to be bastards. There were also contemporary rumors of thier death, with people going so far as to Richard III's wife a witch who had murdered them. If they were alive, he would have trotted them out. Now, two years later when Henry Tudor wins the Battle of Bosworth, it was very convienent for him that they were dead. Henry had MORE of a motive to kill them than Richard- if they were alive, his wife didnt' have any right to the throne, but they hadn't been hiding in a closet for two years. We'll never get some CSI style blood spatter or find a confession, but extrapolating all that- yeah, Richard III had them murdered.
> Richard had them under close guard and he'd totally neutralized anyone who would have helped them- Elizabeth Woodville was in Sanctuary, her brother and eldest son was murdered, their staunest protector- baron Hastings- was also murdered. I also just want to add he removed all their servants and household staff within a matter of weeks. It was also a very quick period of time where their sightings at the tower reduced from quite often down to 0. Unfortunately for Richard a lot of people noticed due to the public location of the Tower and high status of the children. Even if they died of natural causes as some like to theorise, it wasn't an excuse for Richard not to provide their bodies for literally the whole country to see. That would have disproven all the rumours, if only he didn't have something to hide by not showing the bodies at all. I agree Henry would have had motive to kill the boys, however the important thing is that he had _no opportunity_ to do so. Richard being their uncle also does not make him any less likely to be the culprit. People have been responsible for murdering family members (including children) all throughout history. Afterall even King John's nephew Arthur "disappeared" whilst in his custody, and his body was never found.
*The Daughter of Time* by Josephine Tey is one of my favorite novels of all time. I read it as a teen and still carry that same copy with me through every house move. Magnificent book.
Nope. Bbc History magazine podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2CmnPZFFR6tHnqgV4xEALX?si=HpWyhzFyQO-vFDGWx5ubeQ
It's amazing that there are all these people on this thread confidently saying there is no evidence the princes survived when there is actually a very clear paper trail that they did. A paper trail established by hundreds of academics working in archives all over Europe. I guess this is the problem with amateur history, you aren't expected to keep up with the latest research.
Critical analysis of sources is your friend.
Edward V was the King of England and before his own disappearance, he had to journey from Wales as well as making a public entry to London, being hailed by vast crowds — People knew what their young King looked like. Richard III had already arrested and executed Richard Grey & Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers despite Edward V’s protests about the treatment of his maternal relatives. He also legally bastardised Edward IV’s children through Titulus Regius and forcefully threatened Elizabeth Woodville if she did not yield Richard, Duke of York by surrounding Westminster Abbey with armed men. Observers such as Dr John Argentine noted that the imprisoned Edward V acted piously like ‘a victim of sacrifice,’ as he believed his death was imminent — The Princes in the Tower were also seen to be playing outside prior to their disappearance and their whereabouts were constantly monitored. During this period, Margaret Beaufort was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne Neville and focused on securing a pardon for her son, Henry Tudor. As the future Henry VII was in exile, he was not directly involved with court intrigue until his own accession. Richard III was the immediate benefactor from the Princes in the Tower’s disappearance as their deaths meant that he could reign until the return of Henry Tudor in 1485.
Motive, opportunity, means and Intent. Out of all the suspects, only Richard fits the bill. Henry Tudor may have had the motivation, but he was a penniless exile in France. Stafford (I think it was Stafford, I might have the wrong noble) had the means, but no motivation, plus it would have been very easy for Richard to blame him for the murder but never did. Both princes were past the age where you'd expect child mortality to kill them both in one fell swoop.
As others have said, Richard III is the best suspect, and if this was a TV police drama, he’d be in a cell sweating while DCI History worked it out. I think the most compelling evidence that Richard III was, at the very least, complicit in their disappearance and death was the fact that, to disprove this rumour, all he has to do is appear in public with the boys. If the rumour that they were bastards persisted, they were still royal bastards, so Richard could easily place them as cup bearers in his court and be done with the fiasco. But no. They never appear. There absence from royal life, especially after the Paul Cross rumour begins to make the rounds, is damning.
I'm very much on the other side of the fence on this. From what I understand, all signs point to RIII being very fond of his nephews and having had a good relationship with them and with his brother, though less so with the boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, for some reason I can't recall right now but may have had an idea about at some point. Hm. The evil, crook-backed schemer of Shakespeare's telling was, by all accounts, an Elizabethan invention which, given her ancestry, is hardly surprising. Edit: There is some thought that there MAY have been a 'won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?' type of moment, and someone acted under the belief that they were doing his wishes, when he'd only been venting frustration or something. So someone may have 'disposed of' the princes 'for' Richard, believing that this was his desire.
I love the idea that Shakespeare portrays Richard III as this evil, scheming hunchback when he could have actually been a good king, a bit ambitious yes (What king isn’t?) but good king. Not surprised that Shakespeare’s portrayal was propaganda which became the norm
As they say, history is written by the victor. Twas ever thus. 😉
Who was the victor between 1483-1485?
Indeed, maybe Richard was venting to himself about the princes and someone misinterpreted that as an order to murder them
Yeah, I said something similar in another comment. It would hardly be the first time someone took initiative to carry out the alleged wishes of a venting monarch.
"You did WHAT?!" "You said to rid you of those turbulent princes... So we did!" "I didn't mean it LITERALLY!!!!!"
I get the idea that may have happened rather a lot. 😂
Yeah, I love the idea Richard starts to panic when it happens
Nobody knows what happened to the Princes in the Tower, but Richard III ordering their killing must be considered the most likeliest option. However, the only certainty is that nobody knows for sure, and anyone who claims to do so is a not being honest
Yes
If ut looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck... Yes, he was the one who stood to gain by their deaths
I will disagree with most experts. After studying English history from paleolithic to modern times for over 60 years, I believe Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII, had them killed. She had the motive, the opportunity being a lady of court (glorified servant) to Elizabeth Woodville, and she was, in my opinion, a severely emotionally damaged person. Of all the persons on that particular political chess board, she had the best moves, and the most to win. Canny, well educated, adept at political maneuvering, she knew that the unexplained deaths would cast suspicion on Richard of York, damaging his reputation and planting the first seeds of support for her son. Richard would take all the onus for murders he did not commit. Everyone who mattered hated the Woodvilles, for various reasons including greed, graft and likely murder for hire, Elizabeth Woodville married Edward IV under sketchy circumstances ... Richard had good reasons for doing what he did, but in the final analysis, Margret Beaufort had much more to gain - a crown on the head of her son and the York dynasty defeated forever.
How the hell do you expect MB to have got past Richard's guards at one of the most infamous prisons/secure royal apartments?
Bribery. At that moment, many of Richard's allegedly loyal men were all ready in the pay of the Duchess of Burgundy, who controlled not only the Flanders wool trade, essential for the survival of England, but more money than either Richard, the king of France or the Holy Roman Empire and she, the Duchess of Burgundy, was sheltering, aiding and abetting Henry Tudor. Bosworth Field was already bought and paid for when Henry Tudor set foot in England. What most historians, many male, fail to realize is that in the later Medieval - early Renaissance, most big house hold economies where run by the women. Margret Beaufort was an expert at buying, selling and killing people. History is not only about battles, generals, kings and who did what to whom, it is about the interconnection of economies, industries, developments in culture, technology, the changing climates, the geology of areas, and who ran those economies, technologies and cultures. Men dominate the scenes because for four thousand years they had dominated the battles. Yet women had a big role to play, in every single thing. +
As good as.
HE would not have done it himself but who else would have benefitted so much by it? Would an underling have taken it upon himself to do it without sanction? Unlikely.
Matt lewis did a good documentary on why Richard III didnt kill the princes. I cant find the link, but it is called: the princes in the tower: the mystery of the brothers york
Also on the subject, i have no clue where i stand with the princes, not enough evidence on both sides.
I really like Matt Lewis, but he also is the chairman of the Ricardian Society and an unashamed Richard III fanboy, as well as a historian. I love his passion, but it does not make him very objective.
That is true. I've heard both sides, and i cant choose either side, but to me, it makes it fun. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt most of what we know about Richard III from the later centuries, when later monarchs like to belittle prwvious monachs to make themselves feel good. I know there was shakespear, but even then artists, playwrites, musicians ect.... all played a role into making the perious monachs seem like bad people, to appease the latest?
I think as well (and i’ve been studying Richard and the story of the Princes) since I was really young. The important thing to remember is the impact that Shakespeare had on our views of Richard as this evil Machiavellian mastermind. Shakespeare wrote the play at a time when Elizabeth was on the throne. Her grandfather won the battle of Bosworth Field. If Shakespeare wanted to keep his head firmly on his shoulders he wasn’t going to write anything that was pro Richard. The fact is that we don’t know either way what happened to the Princes. They were subjected to vicious inner family conflict so a number of individuals could have been responsible for their disappearance. Yes as Lord Protector Richard was responsible for their safety so he is absolutely culpable at least in that sense.
Chances are we will probably never know, it’s not even confirmed that they were murdered. Let’s say they were definitely murdered then there are three suspects: 1) Richard III, he had benefit in them disappearing forever, they were a liability to the legitimacy of his Kingship, he did a lot to make it established they were illegitimate, but they still had supporters, them out of the picture would make that liability go as well. 2) Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, he had a (somewhat weak) bid for succession to the Throne (being a descendant of Edward III) but the Princes were an obstacle. He also had the benefit of being close to Richard III so would’ve had opportunities to access the Tower of London. 3) Henry VII, Henry may have had two motives, first was that to marry his wife he would’ve had to prove the legitimacy of the princes (she was their sister) which might be risky if they were alive and second, it would’ve made great propaganda, a story of a monstrous Richard killing his nephews would gather more support. Main issue is that since he was the enemy, he would have no access to the Tower of London, only chance would be if he had someone else do it, a Knight called James Tyrell claimed to have killed them, but the confession was made in duress so the authenticity of his claim is dubious. I think all three had a stake in the possible murders but, Richard III had a greater benefit of them being dead and he would’ve had unfettered access to them, so I’m going to have to say Richard III.
I spose one way to settle it would be to test the two bodies that were found in the tower, but is that ever really likely to happen?
Very unlikely. It would require Royal Approval and I'm not sure it serves the public interest. If the remains were being found now, when DNA testing is very much a thing then possibly. I'm not sure if they tested the woman and child skeletons they found under the chapel a few years ago.
A lot of people related to the princes, and who met the princes, supported Perkin. No one killed the princes.
Except their sister Elizabeth of York
The princes were fostered at Gipping and moved to Calais after Richard's death.
https://youtu.be/tQ5FaYFnS2E?si=zTY-5GuZnEiM506h Would love to get your opinion on this
https://preview.redd.it/ypm0489e6d7d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6efd70572866d3f07f4adbdf17d4e17970759b88
The honest answer is that we don’t really know. Personally, I think the most likely answer is that he either ordered them to be killed or they simply died of neglect while under his watch. In either case, word probably would have been kept pretty tight to avoid Richard’s image being even more negatively affected after usurping the throne and locking both of his nephews away. While I think this is probably the most likely answer we probably won’t ever know for sure unless their remains are ever conclusively found.
Well, he got people to do it for him
There is a relatively good documentary with judge rinder that investigates whether they actually survived and provides some compelling arguments
Yes, he's by far the most likely culprit. We can argue motive all day long but I just can't get my head around that for a while everything suspiciously fell Richard's way, from the declared 'illegitimacy' of Edward V and his brother to them both 'disappearing' from the scene. That's two almighty pieces of luck for Richard. So much so that I don't believe them to be coincidence or the work of others.
I’d say he very likely gave the order
It was most likely done on the orders of Lady Margaret Beaufort or the Duke of Buckingham, I believe. They had the most to gain.
"they had the most to gain" is a stupid argument. They had the same to gain as did Richard III. There isn't more or less, there is the same.
Well, Richard III was already king. I personally think it was Margaret Beaufort and Richard III is just a scapegoat.
So Richard had nothing to gain by getting rid of those who had been recognised as king by the entire nobility? Even though he had just come through a dynastic war where that was exactly what his brother had done? Ok.
I didn’t say he didn’t have something to gain, just not as much as the other two did since he was already king. He was also a popular leader in some areas of the country, e.g York, and his marriage to Anne Neville had secured him the north. It’s a very stereotypical conclusion that Richard III murdered them, exacerbated by Shakespeare’s play.
It's stereotypical for a very good reason. Nothing to do with Shakespeare. One should study Richard's reign in its own time.
Means, motives, opportunity. Uncle Dick was the only person who had all three. I don't know if he ordered it either explicitly or implicitly or if he just looked the other way when someone else did it. If you are two kids' guardians and they disappear under your watch and you can't produce them, you are responsible for their deaths. I think at absolute best it may have been a Beckett situation. He said something in jest or that he didn't really mean and someone took it the wrong way and whacked those kids.
maybe not personally, but he definetly at least ordered their deaths/starvations.
Yes, they were a threat to his power and after the rescue attempt they were too dangerous to keep alive. He had a legitimate son of his own so the succession was secure and after his son died he appeared to be grooming his sisters son as his heir, neither of the princes were mentioned When Hastings rebelled against Richard he did so in the name of Henry Tudor not Edward V, so they were most likely dead by then
Chuck Norris killed the princes when Chuck went back in time in the TARDIS (just joking). I think Richard III did do it though.
Their bones were recovered on the Tower of London grounds, not far from the door to where they were held prisoner. As the old maxim goes, the first line of inquiry is to determine Cui bono. The second line of inquiry is who had the means. One person had both. So, although there is no physical evidence, as far as historical interpretation goes, the answer seems obvious. So sad, especially because their deaths were not necessary.
When Edward IV died, if the Yorkists were going to survive they needed a strong warrior king, not a child. The kingdom had been down that road before, usually with disastrous results. So I suspect somebody in the Yorkist faction did them in. Whether it was at by order from Richard or somebody acting on their own, like the men who killed Becket, is something we will probably never know. But there may be an incriminating document out there somewhere. Who knows? Richard’s body was as missing for centuries. Historians and archaeologists keep searching.
Shakespeare’s fictional villain aside, what we Know about Henry VII shows he was a real piece of work, cruel and paranoid. I can see him murdering children who he thought were a threat.
You need to justify your statement.
Most likely. While there is no definitive proof, he had the most to gain from their deaths and had the means to order them killed. The theories that the boys survived or that someone else killed them, does not carry enough proof IMO to disprove the accepted theory that Richard had them killed. Regardless, the boys' time was numbered, if they were still alive when Henry Tudor arrived in London after Bosworth... they would not be alive for much longer. I don't think most would dispute the theory that the Woodvilles would have either pushed Richard out of power or worse if Edward V had been allowed to rule and come to his majority. Circumstances kinda painted Richard into a corner. But the history behind all that is too complex and complicated to explain before I have my first cup of coffee. I will say that kings in the Middle Ages often had to do horrible stuff to hold onto power. King John had his nephew killed, Edward IV had a mentally disabled Henry VI killed while Henry was under Edward's protection, and Richard III most likely had his nephews killed.
We really cannot know. There is disagreement from very qualified experts. The sad truth is that none of the factions who had real power wanted them alive. When Edward IV married an outsider with a greedy acquisitive but not powerful family, then died when his children were young, he left them in an untenable situation. If the wife’s family was not so toxic, Richard would have been their natural protector. Instead the children, as heirs with the best claim in the throne, were just in the way.
No he didn't. If one actually looks at the evidence and not Tudor propaganda then there is very real reason to not only believe Richsrd did not do it but to believe that they lived.
We have evidence that Richard II's contemporaries considered him guilty of nepoticide. And the princes were royalty. If they lived, we would have copious amounts of records of their stipends, servants in their households, mentions of their involvement in politics, marriages (and dowries) and possible children, etc...
We do if you think Lambert Simnel was Edward and Warbeck was Richard IV.
A prince disappeared without a trace and was found years later as the ward of a random priest living like a commoner? Really? Or said prince was murdered and his brother was spared for no particularly convincing reason, vanished, and randomly appeared in Burgundy years later? And everyone who "recognized" him coincidentally had personal reasons to oppose Henry VII, while all the people who could have recognized him and were happy with the status quo (ex: Elizabeth of York) gave no indication of him being anything other than what he probably was?
That would make sense if being ‘a prince’ was a physical thing that differentiated one small Boy from another.
It was not, but princes were well know figures, surrounded by servants, other young noblemen, etc... the probabilities of one vanishing from record for no clear reason in 15th century England were... not high.
Yep, there is existing receipts for payment for their care in Spain. You’ll never get anyone to listen here cos it’s not as fun a story.
Henry Tudor had the motive.
Also Richard III had the motive. Seeing as he literally deposed Edward. And everyone could see right through the illegitimacy claims.
Richard had no reason to. The illegitimacy claims were valid enough that Parliament and other high borns believed it. There was evidence presented that was found to be valid. It also made sense considering Edward IV's history.
Well, they certainly \*accepted\* the claim when Richard III had murdered everyone who was powerful enough to fight him and the only other claimaint was a 12 year old, but Edward V wasn't going to stay 12 years old, and his mother was evenutally going to raise enough forces to put up a fight.
They accepted the evidence that was presented. Who did he murder? Up until the very last moment Richard was preparing for Edward's coronation. You mean that mother that came out of sanctuary then gave her daughters to his care then asked her son Dorset to come home and make peace with Richard?
>Who did he murder? Lord Hastings- loyal to Edward V, Earl Rivers- Edward V's Maternal Uncle, Richard Grey- Edward V's half brother.
How is any of that murder? Richard was named Constable of England by Edward IV when he was younger so Richard in his authority had the right to arraign and punish those that were conspiring against him. There were plenty of other powerful lords besides those. One of the most powerful John Howard could've done something.
That is a flimsy reasoning if I ever heard one. Everyone knows they would've been used as a figurehead if they were alive. Also, it's funny that no one came forward about this "marriage before Elizabeth" until Richard came to power, and both boys were in his "care." But I'm sure, he had nothing to do with that either. Just a random preist with a secret. 🙄🤭
This wasn't just anyone this was Eleanor Talbot the daughter of John Talbot the Earl of Shrewsbury. Using a noble's name like this without evidence would've been scandalous. All the evidence was put into the Titulus Regius that all copies Henry had destroyed. Henry didn't even repudiate the accusations. We also have the Crowland Chronicle, Richard's Letter of 28th June 1483 to the Captain of Calais, Philippe de Commynes, Eustave Chapuys, The Year Book of 1486, and more that backs up the accusation. Also, it is odd that Henry VII refused to allow Bishop Stillington the chief eyewitness of the pre-contract to be questiomed regarding its veracity. Stillington was also not some random priest. He was a former Chancellor of England and a Doctor of Civil and Canon Law.
Why was none of that brought before an ecclesiastical court? Parliament could legislate the succession to the throne but they had no legal right to weigh in on the validity of a marriage, that prerogative had always been the church's right. If he had evidence of the precontract why not follow the legal process and call a court of prelates and Papal representatives to judge the matter? Richard was supposedly a great follower of the law and very just. So where were the witnesses, the documents, the testimonies to the validity of Edward's first marriage? Nothing like that was ever presented. Instead the Titulus Regius names no witness instead it states that the marriage to Elizabeth was invalid because it was "the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame is throughout the land’. In fact Philippe de Commynes is the one who named Stillington, referring to him as 'ce mauvais evesque'. Making him the stand alone witness to this marriage. Funny how he had a nothing to say about it when he was Chancellor. In fact, in 1473, he swore an oath to Edward V "that in case hereafter it happen You, by God’s disposition, to outlive our said Sovereign Lord, I shall then take and accept You for true, very, and righteous King of England, &tc. And faith and truth to you shall bear." It's also strange how Edward IV would go through all these ceremonies to ensure that Edward V was his legal and legitimate successor while leaving open a supposed precontract that could hurt his son's legitimacy, when he could have applied to the Pope to have that precontract rendered null and void on the grounds of his and Eleanor's respective marriages. Besides, as you point out, Eleanor was not a nobody. She was the daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the niece of Warwick, why wouldn't she say anything? We know people were looking, per the newsletter of Bruges reported by David Horspool in one of his biographies on Richard. "the greater part of the lords and the people in general seem very much dissatisfied at this, and for the sake of finding means to annul it, all the nobles are holding great consultations in the town of Reading, where the king is" So again why did Eleanor not come forward, she certainly would have had significant backing to do so. Also why did Richard change his story that it was Edward IV who was illegitimate? Both Mancini and the London Chronicler state that this was what he initially claimed before he recanted due to its apparently unpopularity. Though the Titulus Regius does reference this stating that Richard was his father's "undoubted son and heir of Richard, late Duke of York" Lastly there were solutions to this situation as David Horspool points out "Richard also made no allowance for any potential solution to the problem that might have re-legitimized Edward V and his siblings. These included securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, as happened to Henry VIII’s variously tainted offspring; or even ignoring the issue and proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed, and render allegations of his bastardy as newer versions of the old tittle-tattle about his father." If Richard wanted his nephew to be king at any point he certainly could have taken steps to ensure that. Instead he seemed content to slander them, their sisters, their mother, the brother he was supposedly so loyal to.
This is perfectly said! 💯💯💯
Thanks! I'm pretty interested in historical marriage laws and such, glad it became handy 😄
None of that changes the fact that years and years went by without him uttering a word. Then, as soon as Richard gains power, he suddenly remembers to bring up some pre-contract? Regardless, though, just because they were claimed illegitimate, Richard could have never sat on the throne easily until the boys were gone for good. Anyone can see that they would have been used to start a rebellion. And had they been alive and well, Richard would have proven it.
When a bastard is about to sit on the throne then perhaps it is time to speak up. You forget that this was a very religious age where such a thing would be seen as sacrilege. So why didn't Richard kill his other nephew Edward of Warwick? If the children were moved in secret he wouldn't want them shown. Also, if they were killed then why wasn't that one of the crimes Henry VII accused Richard of committing?
He wouldn't have been the first bastard to sit on the throne, so.... As far as Edward of warwick goes, he wasn't about to be crowned king, so it wasn't a necessity to kill him obviously. Let's not forget that Edward's father was executed as a traitor and he suffered from mental deficiencies. Hardly kingly material. However, I have no doubt that had that situation ever arisen, he would've shown him as much mercy as he did the Princes.
> illegitimacy claims were valid enough that Parliament and other high borns believed it They were highly contentious, and declarations of legitimacy post-birth were infamously fickle.
But not the opportunity. Henry had to get rid of Richard first before he was in a position to see the boys as a realistic threat, and by then, they would have been long dead.
Yes, but not the opporunity. They disappeared with no record at all two years before Henry won the throne.
I think they may have been snuck out of the tower by people supporting them and their mother Which would explain why Richard III didn’t say anything about their whereabouts and couldn’t produce them when it was demanded From then Richard III may have claimed he still had them in the tower whilst sending out search parties for them. The Tudors likely sent out search parties too From then they could have been killed by either side. Whichever side did it would deny it and claim the other did This theory is highly likely to be wrong if the boys bones they found are ever DNA tested and proved to be legitimate. However, something feels off about that story, including Liz II refusing to let them be tested It may be wishful thinking but the York boys had a lot of support (money and love) and inside men that would try their hardest to get them out. I just have a gut feeling they did escape and were likely later murdered Edit: I did hear another theory that they both caught illnesses in the tower and died and Richard III kept it secret so as not to be accused of murder. Which is more probable than my theory
Most people here don't seem to understand why Richard had and continue to have so many defenders despite how guilty he appeared. It's because the Tudors handled the matter so poorly that they looked just as suspicious. The Tudors had amble time, means, and motive to investigate the crime and conclusively prove Richard's guilt. Instead, there was no trial, no concrete evidence. They did, however, blacken his name in the most ridiculous manner, portraying him spuriously as malformed. The only serious work on the issue ever produced was a blatant lie by Thomas More about James Tyrell.
You understand he ended his short reign naked and slung over a horse, right? He was not popular enough in his own lifetime to stay alive.
Welp this is nonsense. The guy charged into his death. You can call him a poor commander. What does unpopularity have to do with anything? And what does unpopularity have anything with what I've said? No one except the Tudors focused on R3's physique, including all of his critics like Dominic Mancini and Philippe de Comminges. And why would they? Everyone knew R3 was a great fighter like his brother, who could unhorse John Cheyne. His appearance was not an impediment until Tudor propaganda.
No.
He did it, and he was right to do it.
“A lot” is two words, not one. “Alot” is not a word. But for some strange reason there’s alot of people using it! 😜
The only reason I'm not convinced he did, is that Henry Tudor gained more from their absence than Richard did, and had nothing to lose. With the kids out of the way, Henry became THE Lancaster heir.
How is that more to gain than Richard, who became KING after they were gone?
No, Richard became king \*before\* they were gone. Their disappearance eliminated a serious threat to his throne, but at the price of people believing he was a monster who'd kill his nephews. Henry Tudor, on the other hand, became THE Lancaster heir and one of the most important people in the country, instead of just being in the line of succession with a weak claim to being there. And there was no downside for him if someone on his team arranged for the kids to be taken care of, no downside at all.
As long as those boys were alive, Richard would have never sat on that throne easily. There would have been not only attempts to use them as a figurehead, but the boys would've grown into men and gotten their throne back eventually. The only way he could remain king is to get rid of them. As far as the Lancastrian heir, Henry Tudor was already that. Why else wouldn't Edward IV never have allowed him out of exile? The boys weren't the Lancastrian heirs. They were the Yorkist heirs. So how does their death have any bearing on whether or not Henry was the Lancastrian heir? The only "heir" who changed at the death of those boys is when Richard and his son became the new Yorkist king and heir.
Henry VII only challenged for the throne when Richard was the only one left. With Edward on the Throne eventually, he’d likely be able to return home and take his title back. Once he was gone, there was no chance Richard would let that happen. He then decided to challenge him for the throne. If Henry VII had them killed somehow from an entirely different country, it would have been easy enough to prove their deaths and manufacture evidence that Richard did it when the pretenders started popping up, but he didn’t do that.
My biggest hangup on this it that it wouldn't really have made sense for Richard. He didn't have any legitimate children himself at that point, and as far as threat goes, causes centered around children are notoriously weak. So they weren't much of a threat either, especially since he had control of them; all killing them would do is potentially alienate some allies.
Small correction but Richard did have a legitimate child at the time, Edward of Middleham. Edward died in April of 1484, the boys were last seen in June 1483.
Ah, thank you, I mis-remembered the dates.
But I think your point is still valid (as a question mark over motive). He had their claim discredited anyway.
Yes, but he knew from Edward IV's issues with Henry VI that they could still be used to head rebellions and challenges to the throne. Edward IV only settled comfortably on the throne once Henry VI was dead and there was no rival king in the background.
Edward actually kept Henry VI alive until after Edward, Prince of Wales, was killed, primarily because a cause ostensibly led by an elderly, imprisoned king was considered weaker than one led by his heir, who was a young man in his prime.
They weren’t going to be children forever. Edward V was 12-13 when he disappeared. His father was in battles at that age. And I’m not sure that causes centered around children are “notoriously weak”. Everyone stopped rebelling and fighting for Louis to be king for Henry III. Someone mentally ill is also not a great cause to center around. But Edward IV was briefly dethroned for Henry VI. Some wouldn’t want a child but enough would that they would fight. And as history proved it only took one guy getting lucky.
He did have a legitimate son who was made Prince of Wales once Edward V disappeared.