"Richard III and the Princes in the Tower" Topic

For many years I have though about this question. There is so much historical-ficton and non-fiction that has been written on this.

Being a fan of Sharon Kay Penman I would like to believe Richard III didn't do it and it was the Duke of Buckingham. But reading history and seeing all the steps he took after Edward IV's death on the way to the throne is damming. The fact that he executed Willam Lord Hastings who was ulta-loyal to Edward IV and his sons for treason with hardly any proof or a trial is what does it for me.

I think he murdered the boys.

I am reading Alison Weir´s book and I also think Richard did it.

Henry VII did it.

It seems pretty clear that the princes were missing long before Henry got his start. Dickon had the boys killed. But I don't see how else he could have tried for the crown other than to remove rivals: was he worse a man for this than so many others?

The right thing to do was to support his nephews in their succession with his considerable powers. History would remember him much differently then! (on human selfishness and ambition hinge so many historical events)

I read Alison Weir's book a few years ago. She is very pro Tudor. I think it is hard not tob bais one way or the other. The fault I found with Weir (I really like some of her other books such as the Wars of the Roses) is that any source that favours Richard III she dismisses out of hand.

But as per above, I still believe he did it.

The only other possibility in my mind is that Henry Stafford (Duke of Buckingham) who I believe was in control of the Tower may have put the boys to death either 1) because he was going to support Henry Tudor Earl of Richmond or 2) he was going to make a bid for the throne himself. After all he had Plantagenet blood being decented from Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (Youngest son of Edward III).

Have you read "The Daughter of Time"? ( link )

"Hi, I'm Henry Tudor. I had no idea that the Little Princes were dead, but I invaded England to defeat the usurper, Richard, and avenge their deaths."

And Henry was so humane after he had won the throne.

I get all my history from Shakespeare.
Did you see the look Olivier gave that obnoxious brat in the movie? 'Nuff said.

He did it.

Buckingham did it. He had means, motive and opportunity.

Historical and cultural context is all-important. I think Richard, if he did it, hardly needs defending. He did what any other product of his time and upbringing would do under similar circumstances. He is not less of a king in our eyes, and not less of a man in the eyes of his contemporaries for it. The fact that the princes in the Tower were children was inconsequential for his contemporaries, however much we may be appaled by the notion of murdering children.

Children were not treated as children at the time, and in fact, it was not until Sigmund Freud that the notion of "childhood" came into being. Children were treated as little adults, with all the expectations, demands and responsibilities placed upon them. Obviously, to the same extent they would be exposed to risks and perils associated with being a titled but hapless high-born thrust in the middle of a vicios civil war.

It was Phillip de Commynes who said that, "Men act like men, and not like angels". If Richard did it, he only did what anyone else of his era, who was accustomed to risking his own, and taking the others' life would do.

I did it. Or rather, I will do it, once I get this time machine working…

And then, with my crooked back and withered arms, I'll frame Glouchester. :P

"Henry VII did it"

Blasphemy!

What hump?

All this "Richard is the victim of Tudor maneuvering" talk makes me sick. Henry Tudor's involvement in the murders is more than highly unlikely as his line to the throne was a bit tenuous, his involvement and influence in Richard's affairs at this point in his reign was nil, and his success right up until his landing in the West was hardly assured.

Credit where its due, boys. Dickon ordered the hit and by God it was the right move to secure both stability and his own line. His brother had Henry VI starved to death and he killed the teen Prince of Wales in the sanctuary of a Church, so the move wasn't outrageously cruel in context. Considering the climate of the time, having your nephews put to death at a time when either of their ascensions to the throne would have thrown the country into the usual civil war over minority rulers would have been the smart move.

I like Richard and think he did the right thing, and no one should take his gloriously practical application of realpolitik away from him! :)

The stain that attaches to Richard is that, if he was directly responsible for ordering the lads deaths, is that he did not publicly announce his involvement.

I think a more likely scenario is that one or more of a number of candidates offed the princelings, hoping to gain favor with Richard. Richard had made a number of personal promises to the boys' mother and would have been highly embarassed at a personal level, while simultaneously being relieved at the removal of a threat to his potential line.

If the person claiming to have done the deed was sufficiently powerful or otherwise important to Richard, he may well have just kept thing quiet without any public display of approval or censure – 'Bad Noble, no biscuit'.

It seems fairly clear that Richard was responsible. The problem I have is that he did not have time to prove his worth as King afterwards. I think he may have been a 'Great' one. If he had been a great one history would have been kinder – look at Henry VIII, and all he did was speed the English Reformation.

Can't resist this one, being born in York!

Sharon Penman's Sunne in Splendour is NOT a history book, it's historical fiction. That said, I think she has got it right in her conclusions. The evidence against Richard is pretty much non existant. The worst that could be said was that the murders happened "on his watch" but he could not have expected that Buckingham would do what he did, Richard didn't have ESP and Buckingham played him false. Being a bad judge of character does not make you a murderer.

I believe Penman is quite scathing about Thomas More and his writings on Richard. Criticism of More upsets some people, I can't think why. He may well be a Catholic Saint, but he was still a man, living under Tudor rule and he knew what his patrons wanted to hear.

As for Alison Weir, if Richard had given away all his money to charity and became a monk, she would still see an evil motive. Richard can't do right for doing wrong in her eyes and I wouldn't give her shabby little book any house room personally.

By the way Edward the Lancastrian Prince of Wales was killed in battle at Tewkesbury, not dragged out of Tewkesbury Abbey. There's no evidence Richard had anything to do with his death, besides he would be unlikely to have ordered an on the spot execution without first consulting his older brother King Edward IV.

It's worth pointing out here that Richard's older brother Edmund was killed in very similar circumstances at Wakefield in 1460 so if any precedent was set for killing 17 year old boys, it was the Lancastrians that set it. Besides, at 17 they were old enough to wear armour and wield a sword; old enough to fight therefore old enough to take the risks, they couldn't have it both ways.

Don't get me wrong, Richard was not a saint. He was a man of his time and could be ruthless when he needed to be. Hastings found that out. It wouldn't surprise me if a little personal malice crept in there, Richard blaming him for his brother Edward's early death, his body weakened by spending so much time getting drunk, overeating and womanising with Hastings.

I don't believe Richard was as shining paragon of knightly virtue, he did what he had to do. But a child killer who murdered his wife? No, I don't buy that for a moment.

As a footnote, I believe Shakespeare has Richard slaying the Duke Of Somerset at the battle of St Albans in 1455. Pretty good swordplay…for a 2 year old!!! But hey, if Shakespeare said it and More said it, well it must be right….mustn't it…?

Loyaulte Me Lie.

It was done for the usurper Tewdur.

And the evidence that they were actually murdered is ????

They could just have died of natural causes but that wouldn't make much of a story, would it.

Anyway, if you believe all you hear, their father, Edward V, was the son of a soldier in the garrison where his mother was living whilst the Duke of York was on campaign. So they weren't really legitimate claimants to the throne anyway. Richard certainly put it about that he believed his mother in this.
Apparently, if this is true, the legitimate monarch of England is some bloke in Australia, not QE2. I've have also seen this theory rubbished by some historians so…
Back on the subject, my money's on Richard III.

Colonel Mustard, with the lead piping, in the White Tower.

Hello Alan of York

I agree with you on Edward of Lancaster being killed when in flight from the field of Tewkesbury. He was armed and was fighting the Yorkist. Edmund of York, Earl of Rutland was killed or should I say summary excuted after the fighting had stop at Wakefield by Lord Clifford. However being excuted after battle was the norm during the Wars of the Roses.

The thing about the Princes was that they were most likely murdered in their beds. They were not in arms against Richard.

The doubt I have about Buckingham (although I like to believe he did it) was that if he killed the princes and then later rebelled against Richard III why didn't Richard use it as an excuse to blame Buckingham for the killings?

Be very interested in peoples views on this.

IMO Richard kept silent because nobody would have believed him, it looks too "convenient". That of course suited Buckingham perfectly, there's no doubt that Richard had motive, with Clarence's son being barred from inheriting the throne because of his father's attainder for treason, only the boys stood between Richard and the throne. If Buckingham had suceeded in his revolt, Richard would have been the perfect "fall guy". Motive however is not the same thing as guilt.

Besides, Richard would have had no evidence to put before the Lords and the Commons in Parliament. Executing Buckingham immediately may have been a major blunder in this respect.

Lets also consider the behavior of Elizabeth Woodville, the Prince's mother. She tried to persuade her son Dorset to make peace with Richard and even allowed her daughters to come under Richard's protection. This was a woman who managed to trap Edward IV into marriage, clearly she was no fool, yet she released her children into the hands of a murderer???? I doubt it.

Also, if it was so obvious to contemporaries that Richard had murdered the Princes, why did Henry Tudor never come out and accuse him of it?

Lastly, Buckingham was the High Constable. He had full access to The Tower and the authority to do pretty much what he wanted. A man in that position would have no trouble whatsoever in procuring the murder of two boys in a time when life was cheap. We are talking about a man who had as much power then as Condoleezza Rice or Robert Gates the US Secretary of Defence have today. Who would want to argue with him? Who would want to try and stop him? Who would want to try to tell the King what he was up to? I would think that only a man who wanted to lose his head in an "unfortunate accident" would have crossed Buckingham.

As Penman says, the pieces all fit together if we assume Buckingham's guilt. I believe she's right. There's no hard evidence of course, but then again, there's no proof whatsoever of Richard's guilt either. The difference is, poor Richard never seems to get the benefit of the doubt by poor "historians" such as Alison Weir.

"Lets also consider the behavior of Elizabeth Woodville, the Prince's mother. She tried to persuade her son Dorset to make peace with Richard and even allowed her daughters to come under Richard's protection. This was a woman who managed to trap Edward IV into marriage, clearly she was no fool, yet she released her children into the hands of a murderer???? I doubt it."

Thanks, Alan York! That's one of the pieces of evidence I always thought cleared Richard of the blame. Liz was a social climber, to be sure and probably a bit ruthless but she and Edward !V were a love match ( believe me, Ed IV was raked over the coals again and again because he married her for love) and their children seem to have been seen as more than pawns by them.

Some mothers are terrible to their children but I don't think there's any evidence that Elizabeth Woodville could have been that callous.

Also, Richard had, what, six other prople in line ahead of him including George, Duke of Clarence's son? Whenever Henry VII stole the throne (and he stole it, let's get that straight!) he went through the rest of the brood like a whirlwind. He marries princess Elizabeth, George's son ends up imprisoned for life, Elizabeth Woodville gets sent to the nunnery for life and (please correct me on this, I may be wrong) but don't the other princesses end up married off to faraway courts?

Also no uproar, scandalous letters to France, even casual mention of the Prince's death by ANYONE (including close family) until after Richard's death. I put my money on Tudor.

According to Tey, there's at least one letter mentioning a visit to the princes _after_ Henry Tudor arrives in London. I don't know enough of the details to judge veracity.

Ok, leaving out the 'suppose murders' of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, did Richard set out to seized the throne or did events push him into it.

Richard and Buckingham as co-conspiritors, not sure which did the dirty deed but the other would be complicit. If one had acted alone they would have been 'outed' by the other (for much political gain).

>>>>Ok, leaving out the 'suppose murders' of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, did Richard set out to seized the throne or did events push him into it.

Opportunity or design, having regard for Richards earlier behaviour and loyalty to his brother, I think opportunity perhaps justified by necessity is more likely than a plan hatched weeks in advance.

Potential rulers would need sponsors and supporters.

Did Richards son die before or after the princes?
Even if the princes call upon the throne was tenous due their legitimacy or lack of it, Richard was left in a very exposed position having no direct heir of any sort. Before their deaths the princes and Richards son were minors. Any move by any usurper like Tudor was always going to be dangerous for him. I cannot see any advantage for the His part of the Yorkist 'dynasty' in having them killed. Henry would have had to have had them killed later anyhow. By doing it sooner the support for the other half, the Woodville/Yorkist 'dynasty', dropped away from Richard and left him rather exposed. And of course by Henrys sudden love interest in the 're' legitimised Woodville/Yorkist 'dynasty' put Richards actions and claims into disrepute.
Henry wins all round. Richard gets blamed for everything by everyone.

But the Princes had been declared unable to assume the throne by an act of Parliament so why kill them?

But the Princes had been declared unable to assume the throne by an act of Parliament so why kill them?

Because one political decision can always be overturned by another.
If they grow up and get a following, or enough nobles are dissatssfied, thye are a rallying point/

Andygamer, "What hump?" Yes I saw that film too!

I love Shakespeare, and Richard III is my favorite of his plays, but my money is still on that usurper Henry Tudor as the murderer.

Richard's son died in April 1484, he's buried just up the road from here at Sheriff Hutton.

Personally I believe that he took the throne because events forced him into it but he stopped well short of murder.

The next in line after the Prince's could have been Clarence's son Edward, whose dead father's Act Of Attainder could have been reversed, putting him above Richard in the line of succession. Richard saw no need to execute him so we can draw a conclusion that he would have seen no need to execute the Princes either. Richard was King and had a legitimate male heir, accepted by the Lords and the Commons, so any political murders would have been unnecessary.

Executing Clarence's son was done by Henry Tudor who, oddly enough, is not censured by More for the political murder of a rather slow witted young man!!!!! A simple minded boy would have been an ideal tool for an ambitious noble. Richard declined to execute his own nephew, whereas Tudor did away with him, conveniently forgetting that young Edward was his wife's cousin!

I only see one PROVEN murderer and it isn't our local hero here in York…it's that Welsh guy!

And Henry VIII excuted Clarence's daughter (Edward, Earl of Warwick's sister) Margaret Plantagent, countess of Salisbury. If you had Plantagenet blood in you during the Tudor Dynasty you would be lucky to keep your head.