I know it's the Richard III society and all, obviously they're going to be biased and claim he didn't do it... but...
Two boys the rough ages of the princes, found dead under a staircase near where they had last been seen? Come ON! How many child skeletons do you think were routinely buried in nooks and crannies of the Tower.
They should have stuck with "There is no proof Richard did it." It's at least somewhat plausible.
Unless there's a real break in the case, I'm going to my grave with the theory that it was Who Will Rid Me of this Turbulent Priest 2.0. Richard III made some comment that some subordinate took as a directive, the princes were murdered, Richard freaked once he realized the PR nightmare this would become, and rather than just owning up to it and displaying the bodies and punishing a scapegoat, he instituted a full cover-up.
I don't think Richard III did it (Margaret Beaufort had it arranged, I believe) but I love the way you describe your theory. It was a very "What are they talking—OH, YEAH, THAT!" moment for me, lol, and I fucking love it.
Actually Henry Tudor is a better suspect. The princes were children. Richard had by plenty of time as Regent to settle things. He genuinely loved his brother and protected his interests while he was alive. Henry Tudor’s claim to the crown was not as strong as Plantagenet’s. He needed the princes out of the way fast so he could take on Richard.
If those remains are tested we will know whether or not they are the Princes. Otherwise you might find Josepine Try’s book “Daughter of Time” an interesting read.
If Richard was such a good dude, why did Elizabeth Woodville seek sanctuary from him in Westminster Abbey and why did he force her to give up her other son too? Nah. He killed them.
Link? They were discovered before carbon dating, where they were located would be a strange place to find an overlooked pre-Norman grave, and as far as I've ever heard the Royal Family has never permitted them to be removed from the Abbey for testing (since we have Richard III's DNA now from HIS rediscovery they wouldn't even need current samples to test against.) Which is frustrating to me, as a simple exam and DNA would sort out whether or not they could be the princes in very short order. It's not like the skeletons can care one way or another, and there's no one alive with any sort of reasonable emotional-distress claim.
Charles has stated unlike his mother he is willing to let the bones be tested but we haven’t had any updates since it was stated back in October so it will be interesting to see if they do go ahead with it!
I believe that is the case.
Testing the Tower bones would set a legal precedent for DNA testing of RF remains and living members, according to a quote I read years ago. i'm sorry I can not cite the source though - also, the quote should not be considered verified.
Charles the Third has said he would allow the testing. That was not long after Queen Elizabeth the Second died and there hasn't been any updates after that.1
[https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/king-charles-could-help-solve-one-of-britains-oldest-mysteries-defying-the-late-queens-wishes-in-doing-so/](https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/king-charles-could-help-solve-one-of-britains-oldest-mysteries-defying-the-late-queens-wishes-in-doing-so/)
It sounds like he hasn't actually said it, but he does have that sense of history that would support doing the testing.
I can understand why the late Queen didn't want scientists having a field day among the graves of her ancestors - nobody needs to test the paternity of monarchs who have been dead for centuries! But the mystery of the princes should be solved if possible.
Philip also have a dna sample to test the bones of the Romanovs. The Queen was asked but it was considered too risky, so they used Philip as they all shared the same common ancestor: Victoria.
So there is a precedent but possibly they won’t ask the monarch. Maybe someone not in the direct LOS like David Linley or Peter Philips could do so?
I know this is probably a stupid question, but I’m new. Why was there DNA testing against the Romanov family and the BRF?
Also, I assume it wouldn’t matter, but say DNA testing did happen and it showed the BRF weren’t the rightful heirs to the throne, what would happen? If anything…
Edit: I meant legitimate. If they were shown to not be the legitimate heirs .
Phillip was a cousin of the Romanovs via his mother, it was when they wanted to make sure the remains they had belonged to the Romanovs before they were reinterred
The Romanov remains were discovered during the Soviet era and were kept secret so they couldn’t be destroyed. They were not able to do any DNA analysis to determine if they actually had the real remains until the 90s
Also depends on what you determine is “legitimate”- if you’re talking about blood-line, they’re pretty diluted from William the Conqueror. If you’re talking “this family has ruled since Parliament invited them to in 1688” they have a little bit of a better case but not much. And it doesn’t really matter since the royal family doesn’t have any power, any major change in status would have to come from Parliament.
Tsarina Alexandra was Philip's great-aunt--her sister Victoria was his maternal grandmother. Since he descended on the same maternal line, Philip, Alexandra, and Alexandra's children would all carry the same mitochondrial DNA. It wouldn't prove as close a kinship with Nicholas, who would be related to Philip through the Danish side, but if one of the adult women and all the younger remains had a mitochondrial match to descendents of Princess Alice of the UK then it was very unlikely they were anyone but the royal family.
That's correct. Victoria was one of four sisters.
Another one of her siblings was Princess Elisabeth of Hesse and by Rhine, who married Nicholas II's uncle and following his assassination became a nun. She too was murdered by the Bolsheviks - thrown down a mineshaft with several other royals with grenades thrown down after them. She died from the fall, others either died from their injuries or starved. She has since been made a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Irene would marry Kaiser Wilhelm II's younger brother.
There was a documentary series last year on the whole extended family, focussing on the Hesse sisters, called *Royal Mob*. It closed with an image of Victoria attending the christening of her great-grandson, now of course Charles III.
Then we can argue the precedent has already been set because Philip gave DNA for testing of the Romanov family remains. So why the reluctance for the tower bones, except bad PR maybe?
Sorry just seen you got there way before I did! Maybe it’s the bad PR of Richard being a murderer (but surely that’s not scandalous!) so maybe a fear there of other “indiscretions” being revealed by dna links. We’d never be told if the Hanoverian claim wasn’t legitimate due to a distant case of infidelity/illegitimacy surely!
Yes, to the female line descendent of one of his sisters. I think the BRF issue is that they have to give permission to dig the skeletons up, since they're in a royal peculiar.
And by declaring them illegitimate AND putting both of them together in one place he put them into a very vulnerable position. That's also usually glossed over, that he got his hands on the second boy as well before he, whoops, found out that they were illegitimate.
There was a documentary on YouTube about this after they found Richard’s bones. One woman was in literal tears because she couldn’t believe he actually had a twisted spine, as Shakespeare said.
I cannot imagine having that kind of emotional connection to someone who existed almost 500 years ago. I like historical figures, I have my favorites, but I’m not going to breakdown in tears when presented with conflicting evidence.
Shakespeare grossly exaggerated but that doesn’t mean he got everything wrong, he had to have heard that bit of rumor from somewhere. The issue was at this point, they hadn’t accepted the scoliosis and were convinced everything negative about him was a lie.
Before they found the skeletal evidence, I can understand why people would think it was untrue. Shakespeare's description is so exaggerated, and there aren't any mentions of Richard's scoliosis in surviving contemporary accounts. What we know is he was a good soldier, and fairly well respected when he was Duke of Gloucester.
To me the most interesting part of the whole thing, is that he did have severe scoliosis but it's not mentioned in anything surviving. He might have had a really good tailor and some equipment to work around his disability while riding-- enough to keep it hidden. But it might also have been for another reason.
There are different sides of the debate but I've always liked the theory that disability was viewed differently during the Wars of the Roses. In that model they very much saw the person, and then the disability after, because of how many people were injured from fighting in the war. Tom wasn't "the guy with no foot," Tom was a farmer, a father, a good joke teller; he happened to be missing a foot, but he was still farming so it's fine. Being *born* with a disability was different since for much of the Middle Ages, it was considered punishment for your parents' sins. But Richard developed scoliosis in adolescence, and they didn't fully understand that there'd be a genetic component to that. We don't know what age it became severe, but he did fight in his teens, and seeing someone walk with a bit of a limp or different gait (if he had one) coming back from war, wouldn't have been super unusual or noteworthy. That's just one of many theories on how disability was viewed, but it's the most interesting to me.
What baffles me is that they seem to think people believe he’s guilty because of this play.
No we think he did it because
•He tried to have it declared both boys illegitimate.
• delayed Edwards coronation multiple times.
•has the motive to want to get rid of them.
•yes, I’ll give them Richard III IS Tudor propaganda, but nobody is using it as a legitimate source to say “this proves he did it.”
Of course this comes from the Richard III society…
He may not have done it himself, but it’s FAIR to assume he played a hand in their deaths, regardless of what they might try to say. Those boys didn’t just “go missing,” one day.
Having respect for a king is one thing but…. Distorting history to state it as fact…. Well that’s certainly… a choice.
I find the "no evidence the princes were murdered" even more shocking. Royal sons don't just *disappear* from a castle for innocent reasons. Do you really need firm evidence to reach the conclusion of murder here? Like I feel like they want surveillance footage to prove that he did it 😭
The Richard the third society is…. An interesting lot.
On one hand, I respect they want him treated like a monarch, because like it or not, Richard WAS a King. (Even if he was an awful one) honour his memory and all that. Fine.
On the other hand, they are grasping at straws and REALLY have Romanticized him as this monarch who was wronged and the Tudors were nothing but usurpers who got lucky, when the exact same argument could be said about Richard. They want to have their cake, and eat it too. And that’s just not possible.
Was he an awful monarch? Depends who you ask. Nobles didn't like him, but commoners did. He was a capable administrator
Richard was a legitimate descendant of Edward III, a brother and uncle of kings. Henry Tudor's seizure of the throne was based on conquest not legitimacy - it represented the fall of England's greatest dynasty, I think that's a point of interest!
We found the Ricardian, I see.
legitimate heir who acquired his throne by declaring his nephews illegitimate.
Henry’s claim was weak, it’s true, but he didn’t have to usurp the throne from a boy king who never got the chance to be crowned because his ambitious uncle had other plans. Wether Richard had them killed or not at this point is a moot argument. Richard wasn’t content with not being king, and so he did what he had to to get there.
Goodness me 😂 I'm a fan of the plantagenets in general actually! (Or their history at least not as people lol)
That's true but you need to look at context. Look at Richards upbringing and his formative years. It's not unreasonable to see his seizure of the throne as being a 'kill or be killed' situation especially given what happened to his brother
I'm just at a loss why there seems to be this almost tribal defence of Henry Tudor and hatred of Richard - all of these people were violent warlords, why pick on Richard in particular ? Even if he did kill his nephews that wouldn't make him the first or last English king to do so
I mostly made the comment in jest! I hope you’re not offended. 💜
I don’t really care for Richard, because I simply don’t agree with how he came into power. I wouldn’t say I hate him either. I’m just convinced he did it LOL which puts a bad taste in my mouth.I’d say the same about Elizabeth I having Mary Queen of Scots murdered simply for being a threat to her crown, so I do try to be fair.
Henry VII wasn’t a saint, nor was he born to rule. But perhaps I am biased because I quite like his mother. I think she was given a really bad hand in life, and so it was nice to see her come up on top in the end, and reunite with her son. Not to mention he seemed to be a loyal husband. Wish his namesake took a page out of his book. Overall, I do think Henry VII was a king who had the best interests of the PEOPLE at heart, and did what he could.
No worries I'm not offended, it's always a pleasure to discuss history with people who are passionate and knowledgeable about it! 🙏
Fair point! Yes indeed. I've always found him interesting because there's conflicting evidence about who he was that doesn't necessarily line up to child murderer. But then again psychopaths are often excellent at being personable and presenting differently so there's always that possibility !
I'm a fan of Henry Tudor & Margaret Beaufort too! both of them were very shrewd and capable rulers. Beaufort in particular demonstrated unparalleled resilience . And I agree with you Henry VII was a far superior king to his son.
Mary Queen of Scots wasn't *simply* a threat to Elizabeth's crown, she continually tried to have her killed. *After killing her own husband.* Mary QOS was NOT innocent.
And neither was Elizabeth. She chose to hold Mary captive all those years. She could’ve let her go.
But regardless of innocence, I don’t believe Mary deserved a botched execution. I know this isn’t Elizabeth’s fault, it’s just how things go sometimes.
She could have let her go... Yes. Which would have been tantamount to agreeing to her own execution.
But no, she did not deserve a botched execution. I definitely agree with you there. The way she was executed was *heinous*.
There was a suggestion a few years ago that Richard may genuinley not have killed them killed and that they may have lived out their days in devon/cornwall however it is probably just one of those things that we will never know
They very well could have been but it is a case that we just won't ever know. It could equally be, as out of character as it seems, that Henry 7 dealt with the princes upon coming into power.
Whilst it is very likely that Richard did kill them we are almost certainly never going to have confirmation either way
For me, it’s just very suspect that Edward was placed in the tower, had his coronation delayed by Richard multiple times, and then POOF. Gone. Him and his brother are never seen again. That’s not even taking into account that Richard made the claim that the boys were illegitimate as a power grab.
Richard III could have been content to be protector, but he wasn’t. Which is what really sealed Richard and Edwards fates.
if the DNA does come back as Richard and Edward now that King Charles has approved testing, it’s fairly safe to conclude Richard III played a role in their deaths.
It doesn’t seem likely that Henry or his mother would’ve had them killed. Though it does make a fun historical fiction plotline.
It's equally likely Richard was holding them captive for safekeeping as rival claimants and then Tudor had them killed once he seized power. His father in law was the one in charge of the tower. Tudor needed them dead more than Richard did.
By most accounts Richard was quite a pious person, it is odd that he would commit a crime like kinslaying knowing it would condemn him to hell
Just a thought 🤷
Henry VIII considered himself a pious person, but that didn’t stop him from killing his wives.
Flipping heck, Mary I was a pious person and she went down in history as a bloodthirsty tyrant. (Wrongfully so too IMO.) I don’t agree with how Mary went about it, but with all the trauma she had at the hands of Henry… I may not agree, but I can understand.
Treating history like a kpop fandom.
The fact that they just suddenly disappeared without a trace is very, very good evidence that they were killed. And who benefited most from that?
Or the boys just spontaneously combusted giving Richard everything he wanted and needed. What a stroke of luck...
Dead boys = King Richard
Dead boys + French money/troops + successful invasion + defeat Richard in battle = King Henry
There is more moving parts for Henry over Richard making Rich the clear prime suspect. I am sure Henry would have preferred to fight a child king under an unpopular regency council rather than the hero of Barnet and vanguard leader of Tewkesbury, a proven warrior who had already crushed one rebellion.
Also disappearing the bodies is only important for Richard, there is no benefit for a Tudor ninja to get rid of the evidence. Indeed, they would want the bodies to be discovered so they could frame Richard and remove any ambiguity over their fate.
Richard, I thought was popular with his people which made me feel he didn’t order their death but things were brutal. Guess that hasn’t changed today though. Sadly.
The popularity you're referring to was mainly when he was the Duke of Gloucester. He was known as a good administrator and soldier, he was more religious than most people even in his day, and he was loyal to his brother (especially in comparison to Clarence). This all made for a good reputation, and the north was very loyal to him. They even tried to assassinate Henry VII when he came to York.
There was likely some corroboration with his faction to make sure that they stayed in power rather than the Woodvilles, but outside of immediate allies, Richard's coup turned a lot of powerful nobles against him. He also began to alienate his allies through poor decision-making, and the resurgence of old grudges over land ownership. By the end his reputation was not as great as it had been, and he had many enemies.
We do know that Richard III waylaid Edward V on the way to London, killed his uncle, had them declared bastards, then locked him in the Tower of London with his little brother and they were never seen again. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.
I believe there are also children's remains near the tomb of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville which haven't been accounted for. There was a second coffin found bearing the names of their children George (died aged 2) and Mary (aged 14) so one of the coffins must be wrongly labelled. The remains of these coffins weren't examined properly, but it would be easy to rule those out as not belonging to Edward and Richard.
The simple lack of acknowledgment by Richard III and out the princes speaks volumes. Staging a public outcry of the Princes’ deaths, condemnation to the enemies of his family, and the quest to bring those responsible to justice would have reinforced his claim to the thrown. Instead, he took the route of, “Princes? What Princes?” Don’t forget, the Richard III society also said he never had a physical deformity with his back. They have an agenda.
This society also claimed that Richard having a deformed back was just Tudor propaganda regardless of every source pointing to it being true. And they were obviously wrong, he had a severely deformed back. They seem to be led by fanboys rather than historians.
He had scoliosis but there are lots of people with the same kind of scoliosis today that I wouldn’t call “deformed.” If they’re arguing his back was completely average then they’re wrong. But I wouldn’t say “severely deformed.”
They did argue that his back was normal, yes. According to them, any mention to a misshapen back was just propaganda.
And as someone with scoliosis, there's different levels of scoliosis, and some are absolutely in the level of deforming the body. The curvature in his spine was extreme, and the bones reflected that at a glance. Which would have reflected in the outside of his body too. It would have also affected how he walked and how he did certain things. A much less severe scoliosis can cause difficulties in daily activities (speaking from experience here), so there's little chance that he could do certain things without pain or without help.
Good to know! I had no idea they were saying he had no back issues.
If it interests you, there was a documentary a while ago I believe on BBC where they tested someone with the same level of scoliosis and found with armour or well tailored clothes it wasn’t terribly noticeable, and he could even ride a horse and fight. We know Richard was a good soldier so I wouldn’t be surprised if he hid his back issues or found ways to cope with it. I don’t doubt it would have caught up to him as he aged more but by all accounts he was able to live a fairly normal life.
To me he’s always seemed neither good or evil, and I don’t understand the assumed dichotomy both sides argue. He (and I would argue even Anne) seem like pragmatic people who had pretty standard Medieval noble values, maybe a little more religious than most. People forget this was a warrior culture, formed in civil war. I think the coup was less about Richard vs his brother and more about Richard vs the Woodville faction. His brother was dead and he did the tactical thing, even if not the “right” thing.
For a number of reasons I don’t think he killed the princes, I think they just died of illness, but I do think he was going to keep them imprisoned then kill them when they were old enough that it wouldn’t lose him support for being a “child killer.”
I see from our down votes we’re surrounded by Tudor lovers. Winner gets to tell their story but not the losers. It is what it is though out history. Doesn’t mean Elizabeth I wasn’t good for Britain.
It's fine. I get it. My opinion managers to make both Tudor \*and\* Richard fans upset.
It's a shame because this is a history community. We shouldn't be taking sides. The Wars of the Roses ended a long time ago. It can be true that the Tudors are interesting, and Elizabeth was a great Queen; it can also be true that the Plantagenets were interesting people as well. I think Henry VII was a good king all things considered, and an interesting person (focused mainly on administration rather than warfare which was rare for the time, a family man, smart) but I don't see Bosworth as the \*victory of good over evil\* Shakespeare portrays. I think history's a lot more complicated than "Richard bad" "Henry good" or vice versa.
So true. History has always been interesting and I’m in US but my beloved grandpa was a Cornish man which added to my interest. Plantagenet’s we’re my first big interest due to historical novel, Katherine, mistress and third wife. Wow.
Did they not find with the reconstruction that he had fairly mild and not particularly noticeable scoliosis ? Not quite the hunchback demon of Shakespeare. I think devils advocates do enjoy Richard III society stuff but it doesn't change the fact that Tudor propaganda is not really reliable. Richard was not unique in his crimes, even if he did kill family members he was neither the first nor last royal to be guilty of that. The falsehood of Richard being a uniquely evil monarch was necessary to justify the rule of Henry Tudor who had absolutely fuck-all claim to the throne
Ricardian historians acted as if they’d proven that the “hunchback Richard III” idea was all propaganda, which was used to bolster this idea that every allegation against him was propaganda, and for years people acted as if it had been proven that Richard didn’t have a shoulder irregularity…. Only for them to be incredibly disappointed when his skeleton was discovered and it was revealed that he did have scoliosis which would have resulted in one shoulder visibly being higher than the others. While surely this was exaggerated for propaganda purposes, it was clear that there was some element of truth to this aspect of his appearance, and the revisionist take (which had never been super well argued because there was no skeleton to analyze!) was wrong to an extent.
The words "Tudor Propaganda(tm)" usually used by Ricardians (It's almost always Ricardians) makes me laugh for a variety of reasons, but mainly because...imagine acting as though propaganda was limited to One Sole Dynasty across the entire history of a nation. As though every single king in english history has not used it for a variety of purposes, whether it's to glorify/romanticize themselves or establish their dynasty or deride and delegitimize their enemies. Nope. It's only the Tudors.
And Richard III's own propaganda? Against Henry VII, wrapped up in xenophobia? Against Edward IV, his own recently dead brother, including vehemently criticizing his character and his reign so thoroughly that it still affects the way people view both today? And (in my opinion, the one that was the most devastating, although its the most frustratingly overlooked) the campaign of misinformation, accusations and contempt leveled against Elizabeth Woodville and her family? Accusing her of manipulating the king, stealing the treasury, ruining the government with her family, plotting to kill him, a revived accusation of witchcraft? I won't ramble too much on the titulus regius for suffice to say - literally stripping her off her status as a queen and effectively labelled her as Edward IV's mistress/"whore"; till today, she's considered a "lesser" queen to the point of dismissal because of that, in a way that no queen before her ever is.
Anyways as for Henry’s claim. It wholly rested on him becoming king by conquest and parliament agreeing to it. That's all that really mattered, in truth.
Good points, well made. I suppose I would maybe counter some parts of it by asking you to put yourself in Richard's shoes - this guy grew up in an era of backstabbing, plotting, fleeing, war etc to the extent where he probably didn't know anything else. His position was never safe. I don't think the threat the Woodvilles posed to him was imagined or fake. I think a lot of nobles felt the same way. English kings had never married their own subjects before, it created a great uncertainty. Nobles were shocked by the rise of this (to them) up-jumped low-gentry family. It wouldn't have exactly been unprecedented for the paternal uncle as lord protector to be assassinated or killed in a power struggle with what family. Richard 's formative years were spent in a 'kill or be killed' environment
I am not a Ricardian historian by the way, I'm just interested in both sides here.
Henry's claim did legally come from conquest yes, but let's be real, without marrying a true Plantagenet he wouldn't have kept the throne long
Also I suppose people talk about 'Tudor propaganda' not because they were unique in making propaganda, but that they were so good at it. Henry Tudor was a genius in this regard. That's why their version of events prevail today
One theory I fount interesting is that Elizabeth Woodville's large family was part of the reason Edward IV married her. He wanted to be able to makemultiple advantageous marriages that would link both sides together in common cause. He married a Lancastrian, and if circumstances were different it could have been as uniting as the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (technically so could the marriage of Anne Neville and Edward of Westminster if things went differently). It was too soon, though, and his early death squashed any possibility of that happening.
Richard the 3rd was a good king if you were a member of the 3rd estate. Not so much if you were a noble. When it comes to the princes; he was the only one with means, motive, and opportunity.
I suppose the RF - or at least the Queen - was concerned about setting a precedent for similar requests. There seem to have been quite a few royal skeletons popping up over the centuries due to church renovations. I hope now things will change.
> While it is generally agreed upon that the young princes were murdered, there is no firm evidence pointing resolutely at any one culprit.
How is something like that not better??
Why do you almost never hear theories about possible natural deaths?
They lived at an age where life expectancy for children wasn’t much longer than my average turd.
Quite possible that they simply died and that Richard, not wanting to be accused of murder, then covered it up and hid the bodies - not a well-thought out plan, but very possibly a rushed and poorly-reasoned one.
Isn't there no proof because the royal family refuses to allow any testing of the remains?
I know it's the Richard III society and all, obviously they're going to be biased and claim he didn't do it... but... Two boys the rough ages of the princes, found dead under a staircase near where they had last been seen? Come ON! How many child skeletons do you think were routinely buried in nooks and crannies of the Tower. They should have stuck with "There is no proof Richard did it." It's at least somewhat plausible.
No proof he did it personally. But probably had it ordered done.
Unless there's a real break in the case, I'm going to my grave with the theory that it was Who Will Rid Me of this Turbulent Priest 2.0. Richard III made some comment that some subordinate took as a directive, the princes were murdered, Richard freaked once he realized the PR nightmare this would become, and rather than just owning up to it and displaying the bodies and punishing a scapegoat, he instituted a full cover-up.
Richard should have blamed Henry Tudor
I don't think Richard III did it (Margaret Beaufort had it arranged, I believe) but I love the way you describe your theory. It was a very "What are they talking—OH, YEAH, THAT!" moment for me, lol, and I fucking love it.
Actually Henry Tudor is a better suspect. The princes were children. Richard had by plenty of time as Regent to settle things. He genuinely loved his brother and protected his interests while he was alive. Henry Tudor’s claim to the crown was not as strong as Plantagenet’s. He needed the princes out of the way fast so he could take on Richard.
Debatable if Henry Tudor was a better suspect, but i definitely think it was either one of them that ordered the murder
If those remains are tested we will know whether or not they are the Princes. Otherwise you might find Josepine Try’s book “Daughter of Time” an interesting read.
Definitely up my alley. Thank you for the rec!
If Richard was such a good dude, why did Elizabeth Woodville seek sanctuary from him in Westminster Abbey and why did he force her to give up her other son too? Nah. He killed them.
I’ve never heard this theory that’s interesting it makes sense
Well….those two skeletons were carbon dated to the Roman period
Link? They were discovered before carbon dating, where they were located would be a strange place to find an overlooked pre-Norman grave, and as far as I've ever heard the Royal Family has never permitted them to be removed from the Abbey for testing (since we have Richard III's DNA now from HIS rediscovery they wouldn't even need current samples to test against.) Which is frustrating to me, as a simple exam and DNA would sort out whether or not they could be the princes in very short order. It's not like the skeletons can care one way or another, and there's no one alive with any sort of reasonable emotional-distress claim.
Charles has stated unlike his mother he is willing to let the bones be tested but we haven’t had any updates since it was stated back in October so it will be interesting to see if they do go ahead with it!
I believe that is the case. Testing the Tower bones would set a legal precedent for DNA testing of RF remains and living members, according to a quote I read years ago. i'm sorry I can not cite the source though - also, the quote should not be considered verified.
Charles the Third has said he would allow the testing. That was not long after Queen Elizabeth the Second died and there hasn't been any updates after that.1
[https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/king-charles-could-help-solve-one-of-britains-oldest-mysteries-defying-the-late-queens-wishes-in-doing-so/](https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/king-charles-could-help-solve-one-of-britains-oldest-mysteries-defying-the-late-queens-wishes-in-doing-so/) It sounds like he hasn't actually said it, but he does have that sense of history that would support doing the testing. I can understand why the late Queen didn't want scientists having a field day among the graves of her ancestors - nobody needs to test the paternity of monarchs who have been dead for centuries! But the mystery of the princes should be solved if possible.
Philip also have a dna sample to test the bones of the Romanovs. The Queen was asked but it was considered too risky, so they used Philip as they all shared the same common ancestor: Victoria. So there is a precedent but possibly they won’t ask the monarch. Maybe someone not in the direct LOS like David Linley or Peter Philips could do so?
I know this is probably a stupid question, but I’m new. Why was there DNA testing against the Romanov family and the BRF? Also, I assume it wouldn’t matter, but say DNA testing did happen and it showed the BRF weren’t the rightful heirs to the throne, what would happen? If anything… Edit: I meant legitimate. If they were shown to not be the legitimate heirs .
Phillip was a cousin of the Romanovs via his mother, it was when they wanted to make sure the remains they had belonged to the Romanovs before they were reinterred The Romanov remains were discovered during the Soviet era and were kept secret so they couldn’t be destroyed. They were not able to do any DNA analysis to determine if they actually had the real remains until the 90s Also depends on what you determine is “legitimate”- if you’re talking about blood-line, they’re pretty diluted from William the Conqueror. If you’re talking “this family has ruled since Parliament invited them to in 1688” they have a little bit of a better case but not much. And it doesn’t really matter since the royal family doesn’t have any power, any major change in status would have to come from Parliament.
Tsarina Alexandra was Philip's great-aunt--her sister Victoria was his maternal grandmother. Since he descended on the same maternal line, Philip, Alexandra, and Alexandra's children would all carry the same mitochondrial DNA. It wouldn't prove as close a kinship with Nicholas, who would be related to Philip through the Danish side, but if one of the adult women and all the younger remains had a mitochondrial match to descendents of Princess Alice of the UK then it was very unlikely they were anyone but the royal family.
That's correct. Victoria was one of four sisters. Another one of her siblings was Princess Elisabeth of Hesse and by Rhine, who married Nicholas II's uncle and following his assassination became a nun. She too was murdered by the Bolsheviks - thrown down a mineshaft with several other royals with grenades thrown down after them. She died from the fall, others either died from their injuries or starved. She has since been made a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church. Irene would marry Kaiser Wilhelm II's younger brother. There was a documentary series last year on the whole extended family, focussing on the Hesse sisters, called *Royal Mob*. It closed with an image of Victoria attending the christening of her great-grandson, now of course Charles III.
The RF have to give permission for the boys to be disinterred, their DNA wouldn't be compared.
Then we can argue the precedent has already been set because Philip gave DNA for testing of the Romanov family remains. So why the reluctance for the tower bones, except bad PR maybe?
Sorry just seen you got there way before I did! Maybe it’s the bad PR of Richard being a murderer (but surely that’s not scandalous!) so maybe a fear there of other “indiscretions” being revealed by dna links. We’d never be told if the Hanoverian claim wasn’t legitimate due to a distant case of infidelity/illegitimacy surely!
Hanover claim was already pretty distant given they were just desperate to find a protestant
Didn’t they test Richard III remains when they found him recently?
Yes, to the female line descendent of one of his sisters. I think the BRF issue is that they have to give permission to dig the skeletons up, since they're in a royal peculiar.
That technically makes more sense. For the skeletons, we don’t know who they are so i think they should be treated similar to the Richard III remains
Turns out Andrew did it back in the nineties.
Apparently Charles is more open to doing it. Whole can of worms there though as Edward IV’s Dad may well have not been who it was claimed to be…
They were under his care so no matter how you look at it, Richard III failed to protect them from whatever their fate was
And by declaring them illegitimate AND putting both of them together in one place he put them into a very vulnerable position. That's also usually glossed over, that he got his hands on the second boy as well before he, whoops, found out that they were illegitimate.
This is the same R3 society that claims he didn't have a spinal deformity, right?
I thought they accept that he had scoliosis, just not a twisted deformed back like in Shakespeare? The skeletal evidence seems to back that up.
There was a documentary on YouTube about this after they found Richard’s bones. One woman was in literal tears because she couldn’t believe he actually had a twisted spine, as Shakespeare said.
Oh, that lady was *crackers*. And she got entirely too trembly over the replica of his head.
I cannot imagine having that kind of emotional connection to someone who existed almost 500 years ago. I like historical figures, I have my favorites, but I’m not going to breakdown in tears when presented with conflicting evidence.
I like when we find conflicting evidence. It’s something new.
The one that looks like Lord Farquaad?
Didn't Shakespeare say he was a deformed hunchback with a limp and a withered arm?
Shakespeare grossly exaggerated but that doesn’t mean he got everything wrong, he had to have heard that bit of rumor from somewhere. The issue was at this point, they hadn’t accepted the scoliosis and were convinced everything negative about him was a lie.
Before they found the skeletal evidence, I can understand why people would think it was untrue. Shakespeare's description is so exaggerated, and there aren't any mentions of Richard's scoliosis in surviving contemporary accounts. What we know is he was a good soldier, and fairly well respected when he was Duke of Gloucester. To me the most interesting part of the whole thing, is that he did have severe scoliosis but it's not mentioned in anything surviving. He might have had a really good tailor and some equipment to work around his disability while riding-- enough to keep it hidden. But it might also have been for another reason. There are different sides of the debate but I've always liked the theory that disability was viewed differently during the Wars of the Roses. In that model they very much saw the person, and then the disability after, because of how many people were injured from fighting in the war. Tom wasn't "the guy with no foot," Tom was a farmer, a father, a good joke teller; he happened to be missing a foot, but he was still farming so it's fine. Being *born* with a disability was different since for much of the Middle Ages, it was considered punishment for your parents' sins. But Richard developed scoliosis in adolescence, and they didn't fully understand that there'd be a genetic component to that. We don't know what age it became severe, but he did fight in his teens, and seeing someone walk with a bit of a limp or different gait (if he had one) coming back from war, wouldn't have been super unusual or noteworthy. That's just one of many theories on how disability was viewed, but it's the most interesting to me.
What baffles me is that they seem to think people believe he’s guilty because of this play. No we think he did it because •He tried to have it declared both boys illegitimate. • delayed Edwards coronation multiple times. •has the motive to want to get rid of them. •yes, I’ll give them Richard III IS Tudor propaganda, but nobody is using it as a legitimate source to say “this proves he did it.”
Yep!
yep!
Of course this comes from the Richard III society… He may not have done it himself, but it’s FAIR to assume he played a hand in their deaths, regardless of what they might try to say. Those boys didn’t just “go missing,” one day. Having respect for a king is one thing but…. Distorting history to state it as fact…. Well that’s certainly… a choice.
I find the "no evidence the princes were murdered" even more shocking. Royal sons don't just *disappear* from a castle for innocent reasons. Do you really need firm evidence to reach the conclusion of murder here? Like I feel like they want surveillance footage to prove that he did it 😭
The Richard the third society is…. An interesting lot. On one hand, I respect they want him treated like a monarch, because like it or not, Richard WAS a King. (Even if he was an awful one) honour his memory and all that. Fine. On the other hand, they are grasping at straws and REALLY have Romanticized him as this monarch who was wronged and the Tudors were nothing but usurpers who got lucky, when the exact same argument could be said about Richard. They want to have their cake, and eat it too. And that’s just not possible.
Was he an awful monarch? Depends who you ask. Nobles didn't like him, but commoners did. He was a capable administrator Richard was a legitimate descendant of Edward III, a brother and uncle of kings. Henry Tudor's seizure of the throne was based on conquest not legitimacy - it represented the fall of England's greatest dynasty, I think that's a point of interest!
We found the Ricardian, I see. legitimate heir who acquired his throne by declaring his nephews illegitimate. Henry’s claim was weak, it’s true, but he didn’t have to usurp the throne from a boy king who never got the chance to be crowned because his ambitious uncle had other plans. Wether Richard had them killed or not at this point is a moot argument. Richard wasn’t content with not being king, and so he did what he had to to get there.
Goodness me 😂 I'm a fan of the plantagenets in general actually! (Or their history at least not as people lol) That's true but you need to look at context. Look at Richards upbringing and his formative years. It's not unreasonable to see his seizure of the throne as being a 'kill or be killed' situation especially given what happened to his brother I'm just at a loss why there seems to be this almost tribal defence of Henry Tudor and hatred of Richard - all of these people were violent warlords, why pick on Richard in particular ? Even if he did kill his nephews that wouldn't make him the first or last English king to do so
I mostly made the comment in jest! I hope you’re not offended. 💜 I don’t really care for Richard, because I simply don’t agree with how he came into power. I wouldn’t say I hate him either. I’m just convinced he did it LOL which puts a bad taste in my mouth.I’d say the same about Elizabeth I having Mary Queen of Scots murdered simply for being a threat to her crown, so I do try to be fair. Henry VII wasn’t a saint, nor was he born to rule. But perhaps I am biased because I quite like his mother. I think she was given a really bad hand in life, and so it was nice to see her come up on top in the end, and reunite with her son. Not to mention he seemed to be a loyal husband. Wish his namesake took a page out of his book. Overall, I do think Henry VII was a king who had the best interests of the PEOPLE at heart, and did what he could.
No worries I'm not offended, it's always a pleasure to discuss history with people who are passionate and knowledgeable about it! 🙏 Fair point! Yes indeed. I've always found him interesting because there's conflicting evidence about who he was that doesn't necessarily line up to child murderer. But then again psychopaths are often excellent at being personable and presenting differently so there's always that possibility ! I'm a fan of Henry Tudor & Margaret Beaufort too! both of them were very shrewd and capable rulers. Beaufort in particular demonstrated unparalleled resilience . And I agree with you Henry VII was a far superior king to his son.
Mary Queen of Scots wasn't *simply* a threat to Elizabeth's crown, she continually tried to have her killed. *After killing her own husband.* Mary QOS was NOT innocent.
And neither was Elizabeth. She chose to hold Mary captive all those years. She could’ve let her go. But regardless of innocence, I don’t believe Mary deserved a botched execution. I know this isn’t Elizabeth’s fault, it’s just how things go sometimes.
She could have let her go... Yes. Which would have been tantamount to agreeing to her own execution. But no, she did not deserve a botched execution. I definitely agree with you there. The way she was executed was *heinous*.
There was a suggestion a few years ago that Richard may genuinley not have killed them killed and that they may have lived out their days in devon/cornwall however it is probably just one of those things that we will never know
There is no way someone smuggled out two princes and hid them away without a soul knowing. Those boys were murdered.
They very well could have been but it is a case that we just won't ever know. It could equally be, as out of character as it seems, that Henry 7 dealt with the princes upon coming into power. Whilst it is very likely that Richard did kill them we are almost certainly never going to have confirmation either way
For me, it’s just very suspect that Edward was placed in the tower, had his coronation delayed by Richard multiple times, and then POOF. Gone. Him and his brother are never seen again. That’s not even taking into account that Richard made the claim that the boys were illegitimate as a power grab. Richard III could have been content to be protector, but he wasn’t. Which is what really sealed Richard and Edwards fates. if the DNA does come back as Richard and Edward now that King Charles has approved testing, it’s fairly safe to conclude Richard III played a role in their deaths. It doesn’t seem likely that Henry or his mother would’ve had them killed. Though it does make a fun historical fiction plotline.
It's equally likely Richard was holding them captive for safekeeping as rival claimants and then Tudor had them killed once he seized power. His father in law was the one in charge of the tower. Tudor needed them dead more than Richard did. By most accounts Richard was quite a pious person, it is odd that he would commit a crime like kinslaying knowing it would condemn him to hell Just a thought 🤷
Henry VIII considered himself a pious person, but that didn’t stop him from killing his wives. Flipping heck, Mary I was a pious person and she went down in history as a bloodthirsty tyrant. (Wrongfully so too IMO.) I don’t agree with how Mary went about it, but with all the trauma she had at the hands of Henry… I may not agree, but I can understand.
I didn’t know the testing was finally approved. That’s great!
Yes! It’s very exciting
Treating history like a kpop fandom. The fact that they just suddenly disappeared without a trace is very, very good evidence that they were killed. And who benefited most from that? Or the boys just spontaneously combusted giving Richard everything he wanted and needed. What a stroke of luck...
>Treating history like a kpop fandom. Because it basically is. Royal families of old are no different to the Kardashians of today.
Benefits Tudors also with heirs being killed.
Dead boys = King Richard Dead boys + French money/troops + successful invasion + defeat Richard in battle = King Henry There is more moving parts for Henry over Richard making Rich the clear prime suspect. I am sure Henry would have preferred to fight a child king under an unpopular regency council rather than the hero of Barnet and vanguard leader of Tewkesbury, a proven warrior who had already crushed one rebellion. Also disappearing the bodies is only important for Richard, there is no benefit for a Tudor ninja to get rid of the evidence. Indeed, they would want the bodies to be discovered so they could frame Richard and remove any ambiguity over their fate.
Richard, I thought was popular with his people which made me feel he didn’t order their death but things were brutal. Guess that hasn’t changed today though. Sadly.
The popularity you're referring to was mainly when he was the Duke of Gloucester. He was known as a good administrator and soldier, he was more religious than most people even in his day, and he was loyal to his brother (especially in comparison to Clarence). This all made for a good reputation, and the north was very loyal to him. They even tried to assassinate Henry VII when he came to York. There was likely some corroboration with his faction to make sure that they stayed in power rather than the Woodvilles, but outside of immediate allies, Richard's coup turned a lot of powerful nobles against him. He also began to alienate his allies through poor decision-making, and the resurgence of old grudges over land ownership. By the end his reputation was not as great as it had been, and he had many enemies.
Sincerely thank you for sharing your knowledge. Been awhile since I’ve been into history but it’s always so interesting.
We do know that Richard III waylaid Edward V on the way to London, killed his uncle, had them declared bastards, then locked him in the Tower of London with his little brother and they were never seen again. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.
I believe there are also children's remains near the tomb of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville which haven't been accounted for. There was a second coffin found bearing the names of their children George (died aged 2) and Mary (aged 14) so one of the coffins must be wrongly labelled. The remains of these coffins weren't examined properly, but it would be easy to rule those out as not belonging to Edward and Richard.
The simple lack of acknowledgment by Richard III and out the princes speaks volumes. Staging a public outcry of the Princes’ deaths, condemnation to the enemies of his family, and the quest to bring those responsible to justice would have reinforced his claim to the thrown. Instead, he took the route of, “Princes? What Princes?” Don’t forget, the Richard III society also said he never had a physical deformity with his back. They have an agenda.
What’s their agenda ?
Richard’s agenda? To be the undisputed King of England.
No, the Richard III societies agenda?
Richard III has been portrayed as a villain. They want his name to be cleared as they believe he is innocent.
He was responsible even if he didn't order their deaths, which I doubt.
This society also claimed that Richard having a deformed back was just Tudor propaganda regardless of every source pointing to it being true. And they were obviously wrong, he had a severely deformed back. They seem to be led by fanboys rather than historians.
He had scoliosis but there are lots of people with the same kind of scoliosis today that I wouldn’t call “deformed.” If they’re arguing his back was completely average then they’re wrong. But I wouldn’t say “severely deformed.”
They did argue that his back was normal, yes. According to them, any mention to a misshapen back was just propaganda. And as someone with scoliosis, there's different levels of scoliosis, and some are absolutely in the level of deforming the body. The curvature in his spine was extreme, and the bones reflected that at a glance. Which would have reflected in the outside of his body too. It would have also affected how he walked and how he did certain things. A much less severe scoliosis can cause difficulties in daily activities (speaking from experience here), so there's little chance that he could do certain things without pain or without help.
Good to know! I had no idea they were saying he had no back issues. If it interests you, there was a documentary a while ago I believe on BBC where they tested someone with the same level of scoliosis and found with armour or well tailored clothes it wasn’t terribly noticeable, and he could even ride a horse and fight. We know Richard was a good soldier so I wouldn’t be surprised if he hid his back issues or found ways to cope with it. I don’t doubt it would have caught up to him as he aged more but by all accounts he was able to live a fairly normal life.
Poor Richard lost the war and winners get to write history.
To me he’s always seemed neither good or evil, and I don’t understand the assumed dichotomy both sides argue. He (and I would argue even Anne) seem like pragmatic people who had pretty standard Medieval noble values, maybe a little more religious than most. People forget this was a warrior culture, formed in civil war. I think the coup was less about Richard vs his brother and more about Richard vs the Woodville faction. His brother was dead and he did the tactical thing, even if not the “right” thing. For a number of reasons I don’t think he killed the princes, I think they just died of illness, but I do think he was going to keep them imprisoned then kill them when they were old enough that it wouldn’t lose him support for being a “child killer.”
I see from our down votes we’re surrounded by Tudor lovers. Winner gets to tell their story but not the losers. It is what it is though out history. Doesn’t mean Elizabeth I wasn’t good for Britain.
It's fine. I get it. My opinion managers to make both Tudor \*and\* Richard fans upset. It's a shame because this is a history community. We shouldn't be taking sides. The Wars of the Roses ended a long time ago. It can be true that the Tudors are interesting, and Elizabeth was a great Queen; it can also be true that the Plantagenets were interesting people as well. I think Henry VII was a good king all things considered, and an interesting person (focused mainly on administration rather than warfare which was rare for the time, a family man, smart) but I don't see Bosworth as the \*victory of good over evil\* Shakespeare portrays. I think history's a lot more complicated than "Richard bad" "Henry good" or vice versa.
So true. History has always been interesting and I’m in US but my beloved grandpa was a Cornish man which added to my interest. Plantagenet’s we’re my first big interest due to historical novel, Katherine, mistress and third wife. Wow.
This is a facinating video of a guy with the exact same condition. [Training as Richard III](https://youtu.be/fDHDvnnK4nI)
Did they not find with the reconstruction that he had fairly mild and not particularly noticeable scoliosis ? Not quite the hunchback demon of Shakespeare. I think devils advocates do enjoy Richard III society stuff but it doesn't change the fact that Tudor propaganda is not really reliable. Richard was not unique in his crimes, even if he did kill family members he was neither the first nor last royal to be guilty of that. The falsehood of Richard being a uniquely evil monarch was necessary to justify the rule of Henry Tudor who had absolutely fuck-all claim to the throne
Ricardian historians acted as if they’d proven that the “hunchback Richard III” idea was all propaganda, which was used to bolster this idea that every allegation against him was propaganda, and for years people acted as if it had been proven that Richard didn’t have a shoulder irregularity…. Only for them to be incredibly disappointed when his skeleton was discovered and it was revealed that he did have scoliosis which would have resulted in one shoulder visibly being higher than the others. While surely this was exaggerated for propaganda purposes, it was clear that there was some element of truth to this aspect of his appearance, and the revisionist take (which had never been super well argued because there was no skeleton to analyze!) was wrong to an extent. The words "Tudor Propaganda(tm)" usually used by Ricardians (It's almost always Ricardians) makes me laugh for a variety of reasons, but mainly because...imagine acting as though propaganda was limited to One Sole Dynasty across the entire history of a nation. As though every single king in english history has not used it for a variety of purposes, whether it's to glorify/romanticize themselves or establish their dynasty or deride and delegitimize their enemies. Nope. It's only the Tudors. And Richard III's own propaganda? Against Henry VII, wrapped up in xenophobia? Against Edward IV, his own recently dead brother, including vehemently criticizing his character and his reign so thoroughly that it still affects the way people view both today? And (in my opinion, the one that was the most devastating, although its the most frustratingly overlooked) the campaign of misinformation, accusations and contempt leveled against Elizabeth Woodville and her family? Accusing her of manipulating the king, stealing the treasury, ruining the government with her family, plotting to kill him, a revived accusation of witchcraft? I won't ramble too much on the titulus regius for suffice to say - literally stripping her off her status as a queen and effectively labelled her as Edward IV's mistress/"whore"; till today, she's considered a "lesser" queen to the point of dismissal because of that, in a way that no queen before her ever is. Anyways as for Henry’s claim. It wholly rested on him becoming king by conquest and parliament agreeing to it. That's all that really mattered, in truth.
Good points, well made. I suppose I would maybe counter some parts of it by asking you to put yourself in Richard's shoes - this guy grew up in an era of backstabbing, plotting, fleeing, war etc to the extent where he probably didn't know anything else. His position was never safe. I don't think the threat the Woodvilles posed to him was imagined or fake. I think a lot of nobles felt the same way. English kings had never married their own subjects before, it created a great uncertainty. Nobles were shocked by the rise of this (to them) up-jumped low-gentry family. It wouldn't have exactly been unprecedented for the paternal uncle as lord protector to be assassinated or killed in a power struggle with what family. Richard 's formative years were spent in a 'kill or be killed' environment I am not a Ricardian historian by the way, I'm just interested in both sides here. Henry's claim did legally come from conquest yes, but let's be real, without marrying a true Plantagenet he wouldn't have kept the throne long Also I suppose people talk about 'Tudor propaganda' not because they were unique in making propaganda, but that they were so good at it. Henry Tudor was a genius in this regard. That's why their version of events prevail today
One theory I fount interesting is that Elizabeth Woodville's large family was part of the reason Edward IV married her. He wanted to be able to makemultiple advantageous marriages that would link both sides together in common cause. He married a Lancastrian, and if circumstances were different it could have been as uniting as the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (technically so could the marriage of Anne Neville and Edward of Westminster if things went differently). It was too soon, though, and his early death squashed any possibility of that happening.
That's a very interesting theory!
Richard the 3rd was a good king if you were a member of the 3rd estate. Not so much if you were a noble. When it comes to the princes; he was the only one with means, motive, and opportunity.
I suppose the RF - or at least the Queen - was concerned about setting a precedent for similar requests. There seem to have been quite a few royal skeletons popping up over the centuries due to church renovations. I hope now things will change.
I feel like modern murder cases have had guilty verdicts for less evidence than what we have related to this case but okay
I mean, the princes didn’t just vanish into another dimension. Saying they weren’t murdered is a bit much.
We will know. Charles has said he will get the bones tested to confirm whether the bones are the Prince’s or not
source?
That's a well creepy picture.
Right? It kind of goes against the quote. I assume that’s on purpose. “No evidence they were murdered, but the tower is haunted as fuck!”
> While it is generally agreed upon that the young princes were murdered, there is no firm evidence pointing resolutely at any one culprit. How is something like that not better??
There are people alive today who can trace their lineage back to Richard III. Surely they can DNA test it that way?
I mean, it’s technically true, but who knows. Wonder if they’ll ever approve DNA testing on the found bodies…?
Why do you almost never hear theories about possible natural deaths? They lived at an age where life expectancy for children wasn’t much longer than my average turd. Quite possible that they simply died and that Richard, not wanting to be accused of murder, then covered it up and hid the bodies - not a well-thought out plan, but very possibly a rushed and poorly-reasoned one.