"Did Richard III murder the princes in the Tower? " Topic

"It is one of the most hotly debated arguments in history – was Richard III responsible for the death of his nephews, Edward and Richard?…."
See here

link

Amicalement
Armand

Yes… well you would wouldn't you?

Responsible for their demise yes, his nephews, no. I have never understood why the WotR canon refuses to accept that Edward Earl of March, and future Kind Edward IV, was not the son of the Duke of York. There are so many WotR questions that would be explained by this:
1). Why did Edward of March tend to accompany the Nevilles while his father was accompanied by his second son Edmund – because the DoY wasn't his father.
2). Why did Warwick act like E-IV should follow his lead – because he was the head of the noble house who put him on the throne and through which he inherited what noble blood he had in him.
3). Why was 'False, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence' so discounted with his brother's rule – because he should've been King and not Edward.
4). Why did E-IV have Clarence killed – same reason.
5). Why did Richard usurp the throne – same reason.
6). Why did Richard base his claim of E-V's illegitimacy rather than his lack of royal blood – because E-IV once crowned is he legal and sanctified king and his sons will inherit by right of descent from him whether or not he was king by right.
7). Did Richard kill the princes in the Tower – why not, they weren't his nephews.
When one interpretation of the evidence* answers so many questions why not accept it until proven otherwise?
* There is enough evidence for this to be credible but only DNA would prove it.

I always liked Buckingham, myself--probably just at the start of his rebellion.

1st time I've heard that Edward IV wasn't the Duke of York's son. Richard's argument was that the princes were illegitimate, not their father. I've read many books by different historians, both pro-Yorkist and pro-Tudor and never come across this argument before. If this was even a rumour at the time the Tudor would have made a big deal out of it given their own flimsy claim to the throne. Warwick was the most powerful noble in the country, not known as the Kingmaker for nothing. His support was essential to maintain any king in those turbulent times. Richard also spent a lot of time with the Neville family, are you saying he wasn't the Duke of York's son too?

There is an interesting theory that Richard III held off killing the princes for fear of losing the support of some people, but that Anne Neville arranged it to secure the throne and do it in such a way Richard would not be suspected.

This did not go as planned and backfired.

SO , If you follow BillyNM line of reason. Why did so many major noblemen betray him at bosworth field?

No, I think Henry got rid of them when he entered London, that's why he was so confident the imposters leading rebellions were fake, and he kept one as a kitchen servant. If they had been murdered pre his victory he would have found the bodies to truly vilify Richard. But since their sister loved Richard and I don't think to kill her brothers would have endeared Richard to her

Would Shakespeare lie?

I believe his actions around that time point towards "yes".

I think Henry got rid of them when he entered London

This tired assertion overlooks the fact that the word of Bosworth reached London over a week before Beaufort's army did. If either of the princes had still been alive, a properly crowned King would have been on hand to thank him for overthrowing the usurper.

As to whether Gloucester murdered them or simply let them waste away and die, the paucity of evidence makes any determination almost impossible.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Vigilant, I'm surprised you've not come across this one before, it's not that obscure and there are contemporary records that mention it during the usurpation. Even Tony Robinson has done a programme on it (I only say this to indicate it's mainstream knowledge not to cite TR as an authority).
Tudor would gain nothing from the claim while E-IV's brothers were still alive as they have far superior claims and as I pointed out once Edward was crowned and anointed he is the king regardless of his ancestry. Interestingly it might add more piquancy to his being crowned before he married Elizabeth of York to show that he was king in his own right (by conquest if nothing else) and didn't need her to legitimise his kingship.
As for Richard going around with the Nevilles, perhaps I should've been more careful in my language as I meant campaigning but if I've missed Richard campaigning with the Nevilles please say when/where.

Hold on – let me go fix some popcorn.

No, but as a potential rallying point for rebellion, he should have done.

The Wars had reached that point where anyone who would get to power would get rid of anybody who might be a problem, even if they were family or could be useful to some degree.

The Wars of the Roses kept on going because nobody ever seized power without strong counter-claimants becoming a problem, which got us a new cycle of war and intrigue only to find somebody else in power and repeat the cycle.

Richard almost made it, he failed to secure power at a point where even the boldest admirer of Plantagenet-style succession had to admit the joke had gone on long enough.

The boys had to go regardless who got on the throne because too many could use them to challenge Richard or even Henry.

Richard grabbed power because he could do so and only became the villain because Henry had to cement his power and control, but looking back he performed much the same way as all the previous pretenders.

It's more than likely that Richard had a hand in it, directly or in a more "It would be such a shame if something happened to them …" way and somebody tried to do Richard a favour.

They were boys with a claim to the throne and nobody to watch their back, given the whole sordid affair so far it's a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

BillyNM I've looked up the legitimacy question you raised. The evidence seems, at best, to be sketchy. It might explain some aspects of the conflicts but that is no reason to accept it as true. In the end it doesn't matter much. Henry became king through conquest and would have got rid of the princes if they were still around. Neither Richard nor Henry would have wanted them around.

Couldn't agree more – evidence about most things in the period is sketchy and this sort of thing is hard to prove anyway and right by conquest trumps everything! That said, I still find this interpretation compelling and if history matters at all it is as much about what it tells us about ourselves as anything else.

It must be true, I saw it in a youtube video.

At least the circumstantial evidence is quite strong that Edward IV was illegitimate. Hugh Bicheno in particular makes a very strong case in his excellent set of books on the WOR.

At this point only the most die hard of Ricardians believe Henry Tutor killed the princes.

TomT

If Henry Tudor felt the need to kill the 2 Princes then why did he have a change of heart with Lambert Simnel?

Did you see the way Lord Olivier glared at the lads when they teased him?
That settles it for me.

"If Henry Tudor felt the need to kill the 2 Princes then why did he have a change of heart with Lambert Simnel?"

A good way of showing that he was a pretender and not worth killing.
Warbeck was older but even then Henry tried to show that he was someone to be treated with contempt, such as the mock triumph, though his initial status in London is actually quite high. Perhaps sending him to the kitchens would have been seen as an insult to the Emperor who had accepted him.
If Warbeck had not attempted to escape his situation and continue to conspire, he may have lived out his life in reasonably comfortable obscurity.