One forgets that Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII, also had access to the Princes and had every reason to want them dead because they were also an obstacle to her son's possibility of claiming the throne.
Becky Richardson Her husband did not have access to them. There is no way that Richard III would have allowed a loyal supporter of Edward IV near the two princes. If your argument is that Stanley was Constable of the Tower then stop and please research. Stanley was not Constable of the Tower in the Summer of 1483. He did not become Constable until after Buckingham's Rebellion. The two boys were, most likely, already dead.
Bella Jam Wow. Interesting theory. Well, first I think that after the rightful heirs were dead, what England wanted most was a king sitting on a throne, no upheavals, no interference of trade; in short normalcy. Granted, a lot a people did know but a lot didn't. Clothed in the heavy garments of the time, his scoliosis wouldn't have shown. If you're saying what I think you're saying, Henry conspired (he was in France at the time, you know. He also didn't have a lot of money) with some of Richard's men to get into the Tower of London? Just because they are Richard's men doesn't mean the guards will let them in. You would need a lot of money to bribe, who? You need to now who you can safely bribe and make sure none of his loyal mates can her what's going on. And remember, Henry had no money to speak of. The problem here is that to get in the tower and talk to his men in the Tower you had to possess a warrant signed PERSONALLY by Richard. He didn't give them out to just anybody. Probably doctors/priests/others he trusted absolutely. I'm not an expert on medieval poison, but I think you would show signs of being poisoned after you die. I'm not sure that's true of all poisons, though. If the boys did show signs of being poisoned, Richard would then be in a quandary. If he displayed the bodies, people would say Richard did it. If he didn't show the bodies, people would still say Richard killed them. I would say though that a doctor who actually made it in to see the princes to treat them would be absolutely trusted and trustworthy. I'm kinda new to the what could have happened to the boys in the tower and when/if/under what circumstances did they die would Richard have displayed them. I've ordered Alison Weir's book "Princes in the Tower" book because I want to read up on just the theories you have. You might get it also. Got it on ebay.
I also believe Margaret Beaufort was responsible, she and her then exiled son had the most to gain. She gained favor with Richard III through her husband and due to the ambitious marriage of a notorious turncoat who at the time was a Yorkist (his brother and he both were notorious for being on each side of the battlefield and turning their armies on losing sides.) So it's not really that farfetched that she passed along the order. She was convinced her son's claim was for god and risked most of her life trying to get his lands and titles back through all the kings during the War of the Roses, in which she had already become familiar with mortal threats to her, her son's, and countrymen's lives. She also wanted her son on the throne because again, to her it was god's will and that to her was indisputable. Also, King Richard had lost his only son and heir and sickly wife at an early age. There is evidence he was holding onto the princes in case he needed them should he not produce a new heir keeping the family line alive. The country hadn't welcomed him at first with open arms, only when he declared them illegitimate did he gain the ability to take the crown, but while alive they were still playing chips and made him look less monstrous to his realm. When Henry VII took the throne he couldn't afford to get his own hands dirty, and there is plenty evidence they had "disappeared" by the time he hit the English shore from France by eyewitness accounts that they were gone. Margaret, who did have servants, messangers, (against her house arrest by her husband who allowed this behavior if he was to become possible step-father to the king) who may have been able to carry out these orders while cloaking it in Richard's name, giving the country more reason to back her son to "avenge the Princes" and "marry their sister to make all right again." The country needed a good reason to support Henry's watered down claim. I believe the person with greatest ability, money, and reason to have this done was his mother. The pardons may be bare, but who would accuse their own mother and threaten their own new reputation? Not Henry Tudor. It was his mother I think.
I've leaned towards the theory that Buckingham killed the Princes and tried to frame Richard for it. Buckingham felt his own claim on the throne was strong, and he was also collaborating with the Tudors behind Richard's back. One of Richard's fatal flaws was that he was too trusting. He had appointed Buckingham as the protector of the two princes with regard for their welfare.
bobbyanna How did Buckingham get in the tower? he would need Richard's permission. Unless he heavily bribed one of Richard's guards which I suppose is possible. Although, how would you explain a suddenly rich guard(s). I can't imagine the guards were brain trusts.
He was the second most powerful man in the country at the time and some highly regarded historians believe that as constable of England he wouldn't have needed permission from the King to enter that part of the tower.
If Richard had done away with the Princes from fear of their right to the throne, why would he have not done away with Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, the son of George, Duke of Clarence? Yes he was barred from the throne by Edward IV but it easily could have been overturned and Richard did at one point make Edward his heir after the death of his own son. Edward had a better claim than Richard as his older brother's son but it was Tudor that locked Warwick in the Tower and had him executed.
Melanie Riebe She was certainly involved in unseating Richard. Richard should have taken care of her after the Buckingham rebellion rather than rendering her into the safekeeping of her husband.
Especially since Lord Stanley and his brother had a turncoat reputation and also both were very ambitious too with ties to who could and couldn't access the Tower where they were held.
I think she as well as Henry VII were behind the deaths of these kids... I also believe Elizabeth Woodville spirited Prince Richard away & replaced him with another boy... I believe Perkin Warbeck was really Prince Richard/King Richard IV.... Henry Tudor was not the rightful king & he should never have been crowned as he was a usurper & just a Tudor commoner...
Thank you sir. Do you know that I nearly came top of my class in grade 7 ( a very long time ago). I made made my teacher and my mother very upset because I refused to write in a question “who killed the princes in the tower?’ I wouldn’t write the answer they wanted - I was 11 years old and I didn’t think he had. It went against his whole life of dedication to his brother. I’ve always thought that Margaret Beaufort was the person who,had the most reason. She was almost insanely dedicated to her son ( perhaps with reason. She had not had an easy life and he was all,she had). Richard and the children stood between her son and the throne. Everything was written after Henry had taken the throne. People aren’t flimflam to write anything else are they? Thank sir for a very good, unbiased video. 2020 Australia 🇦🇺
I enjoyed the 1984 Trial of Richard III that you can find on youtube--there have been several American equivalents where our notable lawyers and judges have tried the case and consistently fail to find Richard III guilty
Tyrell positively flourished under Henry VII which is odd considering he was so close to Richard. Also it is rather coincidental that he received not one pardon but two.
Very interesting. One point left me open to debate...but on you're delivery in this video I have to commend you. You are very good at rhetoric and keep the watcher engaged in a subject you're clearly knowledgeable and passionate about. Very much enjoyable viewing :)
Why are so many people unable to discuss any issue without being rude and insulting? Richard and the Tudors have been dead for a very long time. I do not understand the fury of the attacks here. It takes all the fun out of studying history.
+Nancy Benefiel 1. no one knows what really happened to the princes and people can't resist a good mystery 2. richard the 3rd was recently found under a carpark and reburied in a cathedral so he is no longer just a character in a line of script to modern brits.
I often wonder that myself, Nancy. People who need to swear and insult start at a point so low that I cannot even find a starting point to discussion. It is sad that it is such a knee-jerk response from so many.
Well said. I love a good debate, sharing information, gathering new, it's what history is all about. It's supposed to challenge our views into the past and allow new information, theories and ideas to be examined. Without challenging what we know now we would never learn anything else. I love looking through others theories even though I have my own, but the main point is the only ones who know the truth can never tell it and all we can do is keep the mystery alive until one day it is perhaps solved, unlikely but not impossible. Curious minds can do extraordinary things if people quit fighting and learn new things to challenge themselves with. I've always loved history.
Really great content Mark and so well presented. I'm hoping you can get some success & following on here, and then be able to produce/direct some bigger budget documentries! :)
OK I get the desire to defend Richard but there are endless problems: - Why did Richard not show the boys off when the rumours began and undermined his position? Why did the princes not reappear on Richard's death? After all his followers were still in control of the Tower since Bosworth was in the Midlands. Why did his followers, as Yorkists, not transfer their loyalty to Edward and form a core against Tudor? - The whole claim of Edward IV's childrens's illegitimacy was indeed agreed by parliament BUT parliament in 1483 was a subservient institution that generally passed whatever it was asked to. The fact that Richard felt the need to gain an Act of Parliament says much, i.e. that the claim was utterly dubious and he needed all the support he could get. The basis may have been legally souond but in the terms of the day that was no good reason at all to depose Edward V. It was massively contentious and dubious. Edward IV himself was of dubious parentage. The Act was a coup by Richard III, pure and simple. - Richard's motives for seizing the throne are uncertain. It might have been power, pure and simple but it is likely tied up with rivalry with the Woodvilles and a desire to protect himself by removing their influence. - I imagine that few at the time were 'fooled' by Richard's claims. Even if they accepted the veracity of them the reasoning, that he was already engaged so the marriage was illegal was a minor technicality. Richard's supporters portray him as reluctantly forced to assume the crown when he was shown the evidence of his nephew's illegitimacy. The reasoning was spurious and clearly an excuse for a naked coup. - Why, if the boys were illegitimate, would he give them the honour of a royal residence? His claim rested on their illegitimacy and paying them honour simply undermines his own position. Why also were there persistent rumours that he wanted to marry his equally illegitimate neice? The whole illegitimacy thing was basically spurious, an excuse. - The Woodvilles had built up a power base right across England and had many supporters who could be dangerous. The princes were obviously the focus of their loyalty and were a threat to Richard. Assuming that the Act of Parliament convinced everyone and the boys were shrugged off as illegitimate and ignored is naive and ridiculous. If Henry Tudor could put forward a claim to the throne than those of Edward and Richard were rock solid. I imagine that all but Richard's blindest followers (most of whom were in the North) were unconvinced. He had power and the ability to deal with his opponents but this could easily change. - Why did Elizabeth Woodville fear Richard so much? Why hide from him in holy ground and seek sanctuary? She obviously feared him and with his coup this looks to have been a sound strategy. Why did she emerge? Possibly because she knew her sons were dead and there was nothing else to struggle over, Richard had won and she would cut her losses. - Why then did she side with Tudor, whose claim was paper thin and whose chances looked weak at best? Why support, as it seems she did, his invasion? Why allow her daughter to marry him and not spirit her abroad to form the nucleus of an opposition as had been done so often at that time? The only logical answer is that she knew her sons were dead and Tudor offered her family a chance of revenge and then, in the person, of Elizabeth of York, the opportunity to be the ancestors of a dynasty. - Why when Tudor invaded did Richard have so much trouble composing an army capable of defeating what was, in effect, a small and pretty weak invasion force? His defeat at Bosworth when the odds should have been hugely in his favour shows a king who had little support and could not count on many of the grandees such as the Stanleys to assist him. Why did Stanley not back him? What was it that made people reluctant to support him and ultimately led to it being impossible for him to put together a decent and effective army? The logical viewpoint is: - Richard's claim to the throne was exceptionally dubious, enforced purely by his sword arm. Nobody was convinced but he had the whip hand and the support of all those who opposed the Woodvilles. - The princes were extremely dangerous to Richard, whose power base was in the north and for whom the south was potentially hostile. While young they were not far from majority and could then form a nucleus of support centred on their powerful Woodville relatives. - The boys unarguably disappeared during Richard's reign and not afterwards. This is no coincidence. They were a danger to him. - With Elizabeth Woodville intriguing against him and clearly opposing him the logical step was to remove the focus of any dissent, the princes. Any adverse events might easily turn enough against Richard to launch a revolt. Edward IV had been popular and whilst the Woodvilles were not, there would have been much disquiet over the treatment of the boys. - The Tower of London was no accident. While it was a residence, it was not normally used as such and to claim that it was is a stretch. It was primarily a fortress and prison. Placing them there was obviouosly to keep them under tight control and prevent any rescue bids. After all if they were illegitimate then paying them such honour was odd and they should have simply been pensioned off to an estate somewhere. Keeping them under tight control right in the royal centre was no accident, nor a normal residence. There were palaces far more adequate to the princes. The Tower, although a residence was also a place of execution and torture. Residents could not escape the beheading of traitors on Tower Hill, why put two harmless and impressionable boys there? Royal children were usually raised in country estates by wards not kept in the main fotress in London. For example, Queen Elizabeth only lived there while under suspicion of treason and was transferred to comfortable quarters there but undoubtedly under supervision. - Richard needed to be rid of the princes, it is vanishingly unlikely that they would have been somehow kept secret right through the later months of his reign and into the early part of Henry VII's, even if they were just released in the chaos of the aftermath of Bosworth. Henry VII could far more easily have deposed Edward V on the grounds that his entire line were usurpers from Edward IV and had no legitimacy. He could have had an Act of Parliament passed to state this. That was a far more powerful argument than Richard's dodgy illegitimacy claims. Edward IV was a usurper, certainly a strong case could be made. But he had Richard's Act revoked, in order to legitimise Elizabeth of York so he could marry her. He could have left this on the statute books and married another, but he saw the importance of the Woodville-York family and must have seen the chance of support for them, just as Richard must have and fooled nobody with his Act of Parliament.
we seem to think that Kings had complete control.. The Men of the Privy Council were the ones to look at in suspicion and if he had already become King would have been too busy to look after his nephews, their care would have been in the hands of others with who knows what fealties... i think it will forever remain a mystery but my heart tells me Margaret Beaufort and her husband had a big part to play in their demise!
elleanarchy Yes, parliament and the privy council especially in tge the middle ages were in complete control and it was them that made Richard king when his nephews were declared illegitimate. Richard didn't dare to kill the princes in mh opinion and I agree with you.
Wendy Hull My understanding is that Parliament existed merely to sign the king's laws. Why else would they approve Richard's Titulus Regius to invalidate Edward's marriage when they had no jurisdiction to invalidate marriages. The reason: the members were told to bring a "small company." Richard and Buckingham had I believe 5,000 men in town. In short they were afraid of him. If the privy council was so all powerful, how did it happen that Lord Hastings, privy council member, was dragged out of a privy council meeting and beheaded on the spot? Granted the privy members refused permission to execute Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey, et al. So Richard just had them executed after a "trial." Oh, Richard dared all right. He wanted that throne and he was going to get it. Killing to boys was easy after all he'd been thru.
Ok lets look at the psychology of this, a man is loyal to his brother for 30 years shows no sign of treachery or dis loyalty suddenly turns into a cold, calculating killer over night. Richard doesn't come across as an impulsive person yet he drags Hastings out a meeting for no reason when Hastings as openly had his back from the beginning that's not someone who's plotting behind the scenes who's coming across as a manipulator that show's anger and rage at someone who he though he could trust who he's found out betrayed him. The Woodvilles didn't want Richard to be protector when Elizabeth Woodville heard Richard was heading to London she packs her belongings, takes money from the treasury and heads to sanctuary. This makes no sense unless it was because she was going against her husbands wishes and was trying to ensure Richard wouldn't have had any input and wanted to control Edward V herself. If he really wanted to kill the children, which even in medieval times wasn't looked greatly on, he went about it the wrong way, this cold blooded killer could have easily announced they had died from natural causes and ensure no up risings were done in their names, but he doesn't. And what reason would there be to kill these boys at this point? Who would start a rebellion ? There was no one left. Plus he leaves Georges son very much alive even though he was later executed on a trumped up charge under Tudor. I'm guessing they approved because they all knew Edward's reputation with women, having an eye witness come forward to tell his version of what happened, which may not mean much to you but it did to them, and also that suspicion and wonder had probably surrounded Gerorge Duke of Clarence's death. George had been a thorn in Edward's side for years plotting and fighting against him yet chroniclers suggest George started spouting off about Edwards illegitimacy and that of his children and finally he deals with him then to shut him up, what was he afraid of?. Richard held one parliament and changed laws for the GOOD of the people, he was known to be chivalrous in campains and York city was devastated beyond belief when he died at Bosworth they certainly weren't afraid of him. I'm not saying he wasn't ruthless when the need arose he was, after all, a man of his times but a cold bloodless killer and manipulator I think not.
RIII didn't murder the Princes. Nobody knows where they went though. But why would Richard shoot himself in the foot. Having the princes killed would have brought great trouble for Richard. And Richard was very intelligent. No. Either he moved them to an unknown remote location. Under very strict guard by some of his most trusted people. Or someone else killed them. To discredit Richard & cause a rebellion against him that would topple him. If you were Richard. What would you do? Exactly. You don't want ANY blood from those princes on your hands. So you pull out all the stops to contain them. Where they can live in luxury. But under strict guard.
Richie Y-W Sorry, but it's no good them being alive so you "don't have blood on your hands" unless it is very clear for all to see that they ARE ALIVE! Not only did no one ever see them again after a certain point, but he didn't even bother trotting out a couple of ringers for the people to see at a distance. He knew the populace was muttering about their disappearance --- yet he did nothing to rebut the rumours. Guilty conscience, to me.
Excellent theory! I strongly believe Richard is not his nephews' killer. I am a volunteer in the Missed Princes project and I hope the truth will come to light very soon.
A proper forensic examination of the alleged bones of the princes in Westminster Abbey would be interesting, perhaps there should be a petition asking for this!
Here’s a burning question: why won’t the Queen allow testing on the princes’ “remains”? Is British government afraid that the bones might not be the princes’? 🤔
Thomas More was not born until 1478, five years before Edward IV died. That means he was but a child when Richard III took the throne. He had no firsthand knowledge of the events. Shakespeare was just a writer, writing propaganda for Henry VII.
The reason why I think that Richard III did not kill Edward V and his brother is Titulus Regius. Edward and Richard would not be a threat to Richard III. I do not think that Richard III would kill his nephews anyway. I reckon that the boys were not killed until after Bosworth. The fact that they were not seen after the summer of 1483 is irrelevant. I think this because Henry VII repealed Titulus Regius and he would have only done so if he knew the boys were dead.
I think Margaret Beaufort & Henry VII were the orchestration of the deaths of these kids... Heck why else was Henry VII so paranoid during his reign?? I also believe Elizabeth Woodville smuggled her son, Prince Richard out of the country & replaced him with another little boy... I believe Perkin Warbeck was really Prince Richard and thus rightful King of England...
I have learn that Richard III 2nd older brother had a son. This son had a better claim to the thrown than Richard. Yet Richard III never touched him. This Prince was killed by Henry VII.
From the only thing I learned about the bones was that they were not the ages of the two teens. I think the presenter is right, it only makes sense for Tudor to have either killed them or sent them far away out of Britain and with his power he could hush anything up and forever. Tudor was a bad man.
Very interesting: I’ve heard that the Duke of Buckingham or Margaret Beaufort (Henry 7th’s mother) might have had the Princes murdered: so that Buckingham or Henry could take the throne, but that is earlier, before Bosworth
I pretty new to this topic but it seems pretty obvious to me that Henry Tudor had far more reason to off the princes than Richard. For one thing, his marriage to Elizabeth, which solidified his claim to the throne, was only advantageous because her brothers were out of the way? On the other hand, while the boys posed no immediate threat to Richard it's plausible that they could at some point. So in my amateurs mind, you have one potential king to whom the princes are a definite impediment and who later proves himself more then willing to kill to acquire the throne, and then you have a current king to whom the princes pose no actual threat especially given the their illegitimate status. Furthermore, you have conflicting sources with regards to Richards character but Henry was known to be suspicious, paranoid and manipulative his entire life. I appreciate that my understanding is basic but to me it seems like a no brainer?
In the first place it was no reason whatsoever for Elizabeth to be married to Tudor if the princes were still alive. Not to mention that logically, the princes were the same level of threat to any occipant of the throne, be it Richard or Henry.
Wendy Hull Not if the princes were alive. The only way for them to be alive is if Edward V ascended the throne in an orderly manner. Richard would peacefully become Edward's Lord Protector. The subject of a marriage between Elizabeth and Tudor would not have come up. She would have been married off to a foreign royal. I don't know what Margaret would have done. If she kept pushing for her son to be ruler of England, she or Henry would have had to kill both the king and the prince. And they would not be been together conveniently in the tower like sitting ducks. Or maybe she would go back to merely wanting Henry's old title and land given back to him and give up the whole king idea.
Charli30902 You've got a very good grasp of the situation. Others will disagree but at that point in time, Richard had far more motive for offing the boys than Henry. Richard wants the throne NOW. He's had them bastardized but that's really not enough. You cannot leave deposed kings alive even if they aren't legitimate. It's easy to take away legitimacy but its equally easy to reverse it. Look at Englands history of deposed kiing. It's not good. Except for one who abdicated/deposed (Jamees II) they were deposed and murdered. You cannot leave a former ruler/prince in line for the throne alive to cause future trouble. Perfect example if Edward IV who deposed Henry VI. One of his former loyalists and one of Edward's brothers(!) deposed Edward. They took Henry out of the Tower and set him on the throne again. Edward regained his throne but learned his lesson. He had Henry murdered, killed his son in battle and took back his throne. Henry wouldn't have wanted the throne back but other people will use people like Henry (not all there) to rule through. The problem with Henry Tudor at the time when the princes disappeared and presumed dead is that Henry was in France. He also had no money to hire assassins. The other problem was access to the tower. His assassins would have needed a warrant signed by Richard himself to get in. I don't think Henry's men would have gotten permission. Now if the princes had still been alive when Henry invaded after Bosworth, no question he would have murdered them. And found a way to display them as being dead to avert pretenders. If you were Richard, you'd be in a bind. People could see them, wonder what was going on. He most likely knew he had to make his move. One of the interesting things he did before the boys disappeared was dismiss all of their servants. The illegitimacy thing was a weak reed to lean on. People wanting to use one or both of them would use them as figureheads in uprisings.
So if More's account is so detailed... no one else reported this accounting? Did More' ever say who told him all this?.. where he got this information? His bread was buttered by Tudor's favor. Confession under torture paints a Tudor favored story.
My problem with this view is that many monarchs, around the world, when stolen or conquered by a rival king, they would kill all parts of the family so that they wouldn't have any threats later in the rule. You know, so "Hamlet" doesn't happen.
your opinion i would like to here about please mark goacher? about Tony Robinsons' documentary on Queen Elizabeth II - NOT the rightful heir to the Throne of England
The presenter contradicts himself. Early in the video he makes the oft repeated case that Richard had “nothing to fear” from his nephews (actually, of a party forming around them) once they were declared illegitimate. Later in the video, he states that Richard kept them incommunicado in the tower for fear of supporters trying to free and restore them. Which is it? Of course, the legitimacy question could have easily been reversed if Edward’s V's party came to power. The parliament was a rubber stamp for the king at that point in English history. Henry VII’s line of descent from John of Gaunt had been first judged illegitimate and then later legitimized. Even then, they were attained from ever sitting on the throne. Obviously, he did. If Henry VII had had them murdered, then how exactly did Thomas More know where they were buried? Who ever accused Henry prior to More's time? Where would have More gotten such information? The Church of England and the queen refuses to allow DNA testing on the skeletal remains of the two children buried in the tower under the staircase. I have no doubt that if such was done now, in light of the DNA testing on Richard’s remains, that it would be proof positive that they were his close relatives, his nephews. Besides, what other two kids could have possibly been buried there like that? Who? Why? Dental evidence could well determine their ages which would lay to rest all doubt in my opinion. Finally, from all accounts, Henry and his wife had a wonderfully (and surprisingly, considering that it was the most political of marriages!) harmonious marriage and seemed to genuinely love each other. Henry was always a pious man at heart and had been as merciful as the times and circumstances permitted him to be. (For example, he spared Lambert Simnel, the hapless pretender boy tool of de la Pole.) Whom seems the more likely villain here? A man who spared a ten year old child who claimed his throne or a man who deposed and (at the very least) walled his own child nephews up for his own benefit? Come now, Mr. Goacher. Methinks thou dost protest too much! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
+litwriter100 A pious man? Henry VII kept George Duke of Clarence's son locked in the tower from the age of ten till Henry had him executed on some trump up charge. He also dates his reign from the day before Bosworth battle so that he can accuse all those fighting for their King of treason. Have you forgotten who More grew up in the household of?
+Hayley James As I wrote, Henry Tudor was as merciful as his times and circumstances permitted him to be. Thus, he spared Simnel. The adage: “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown” could not be more applicable than it was in the times Henry lived. Edward Plantagenet’s history has always been somewhat murky, his life both under Richard and Henry. For the boy to have survived as long as he did before dying by execution as a young man evidences that he had probably been reasonably well treated in his captivity and not chained away in some dark recess of the tower. Henry had to contend with not just legitimate rivals to the throne, such as the de la Poles, but also the feigned boys. Edward confessed to plotting to escape with Warbeck, probably prefatory to acknowledging Warbeck as his cousin Richard of York, thus adding to the latter’s appearance of validity in his claim. Therefore, Henry had been justified in his actions, I think. Let us not forget that Henry did uphold the boy’s right to the title of Earl of Warwick (by his right from his mother) prior to this time. As for Henry being a pious man at heart, despite his renown frugalness he did pay out of his own pocket for a proper Christian burial for this Yorkist plotter against his crown and person. By all accounts, he was a remarkably faithful husband to his wife. Regarding Thomas More, I have not forgotten that he is a canonized saint in my religion and a martyr to it; a man of unquestioned principles and integrity.
@@harrygallagher4125 Thomas More was a bigot who considered it acceptable to have people tortured and burned alive because of a difference in religion. So much for his principles and integrity. He should be burning in hell, if there is such a place.
Very interesting that the Queen won’t allow them to be DNA tested the question is why what does she know that we don’t and what is it that she is keen to cover up. If the Queen won’t allow the truth to be uncovered then it must be bad - I mean worse case scenario it means they’re not the princes at all. The fact that the Queen and CofE are refusing to allow DNA testing of the skeletons is a huge red flag 🚩- very loud alarm bells ringing in my head.
Brilliant. Don't forget Elizabeth of York had to be legitimate for Henry T to marry her so her brothers must be legit also. Good reason to kill. Buckingham also involved and Richard didn't need to kill the Princes. Sir James Tyrell and T of L summed it up beautifully. But why do you have a Red Dragon next to your name. That's Tudor!
When the princes were locked out in the tower Elizabeth of York was a teenager with zero political power her mother was the one who drive her and I doubt she wanted to kill her brothers, her mother, her uncle, margaret and Henry conspired around her persona because they had especific objetives, richard keep his throne and the others put henry on it and she didnt want to be queen, she wanted to marry a man for love then after the death of her brothers became the centre of attention like the bond of union between two houses and it wasn't even certein that Henry would win the battle and she will be queen... if you think elizabeth the teenager did it then why you dont talk about Anne Neville unlike elizabeth, anne was already the queen of england and had a son to proclaim as 'Prince of Wales' instead of the disappeared / dead princes and nobody would question who would be the next succession line, to many people it was dishonest the Princes and Elizabeth being declared illegitimate, there were still enough people who recognized the two Princes and Elizabeth as the true successors because they loved their father and that was a problem for richard and anne that become more hostile after their disappearance.
Even though I do very much enjoy these different and new takes on famous old conspiracies, I think it could only be Richard III. People like to say that everything was Tudor propaganda, and while it is true it was found he had no hunchback, he had a spinal deformity, meaning his back would have been funnily shaped. What else could be true? I definitely do agree he was made out to be much more wicked than he actually was, though he was definitely ambitious. Dominic Mancini, an Italian who visited England during Richard's time, wrote a live account of his reign. From what I recall, be free to correct me; he stated that Richard III was incredibly ambitious, and that people at that time believed Richard III had the princes, 'done away with.' And the fact it makes perfect sense. The trick is not to over think it and simply put yourself in Richard's shoes. Within three months of his brother's death, not only had he said Edward IV - his own brother - was illegitimate but also his brothers sons, (creating the 'Titulus Regius.') He did this because, like Mancini states - he was ambitious. It's obvious! Nobody would slander their own family members unless they were very needy for a crown. Richard III was quite desperate to have the princes under his watch and control, why? And why did they just vanish after the coronation? Surely someone, somewhere would have seen them - Mancini was not the only one writing at the time. He even wrote about Edward V being comforted after finding out he would not be King, but in fact his uncle - showing that these writers at the time had a lot of sources and information available to them, and even Mancini was baffled on what had happened to them. I know people are creating 'ifs' and 'buts' but honestly, none make any sense. Why would he send them away? Keeping the princes alive, anywhere, would cause serious threat to his reign. With them disposed off, who would his enemies point to instead of him? There would be no way to call him a usurper. The Henry Tudor idea is ridiculous too. No way would the princes have been missing for 2-3 years, not without a single sighting by anyone. My final point are the skeletons under the staircase. I find it quite hard to understand anyone who doesn't think it's that of the two princes. Think about it logically, the skeletons of two boys, who went missing some two hundred years before being found, who fit the age of Edward and Richard - went completely missing and no one knew what happened to them. Further evidence shows that their cousin was also found (in around 1960 I think?) and it showed they were related to those skeletons believed to be the princes in the tower, by dental evidence. My conclusion, two boys - who were seen as a threat to a rather ambitious man, did the hard decision of 'putting them away,' which is why he nor anybody else ever mentioned them or attempted to show/talk about them publicly. Hid them under the stairs so nobody would see them carrying off the bodies, and alas! his reign is secured. Which, funnily enough, is the most accepted theory!
+Laura Plantagenet I still think that myself. It's been years (since I was in high school actually) since I read this and people say that he didn't do it. But it doesn't make any sense why he would kill his beautiful and loving nephews. They were just young children and didn't do a damn thing 2 him. They had their lives taken away be4 they even had a real chance 2 live and experience life. Poor babies. Have u heard of the anime Black Butler? They actually talk about them in there. Wanna see the episode?
The problem with Mancini was he never met with anyone in Richard’s circle and a lot was gossip that he had picked up so when quoting Mancini it’s good to try and find another source to back it up. Also he wasn’t in the country very long and much of what he wrote he did so after leaving England. And when you say Richard was desperate to have the boys under his watch they were in the tower, a royal residence at that time, it was normal for that to happen. Mancini writes about the princes yet never spoke directly with anyone in Richards circle, and since you say Richard kept them under his watch I doubt many people would have had access to them, if we are to look at it that way. You also have to remember the boys weren’t the only possible heirs to the throne, George Duke of Clarence’s son was also around at this time but yet Richard didn't feel threatened by him yet he too could have been used as rallying point. Once Henry took the throne he was kept locked up in the tower from the age of ten till he was executed on stupid charges but Henry had a habit of killing Yorkist's. There have been many sets of skeletons found in the tower over the years, some have which have been claimed to be the princes in the tower. The only reason why people thought they might be their bones is because More wrote about it. And who did More grow up in the household of? Moreton, a staunch Lancastrian supporter who was in with the Tudors! So if Moreton knew where the bones were why did he not tell the new King? Henry had done everything in his power to discredit Richard where he could yet failed to even mention the princes, even once! Not until the so called Tyrell confession which was most certainly fake. I’m not saying Henry did but I believe he knew exactly what happened to those boys. Hence why he destroyed so many documents at that time.
Let’s not forget, there was also a persistent rumour that Edward the fourth was not actually the son of Richard of York as it was said that Cecily Neville had had an affair of which Edward was the product. That could easily have been advocated by Richard invalidating Edward the fifth’s claim to the throne.
If Titulus Regius was based on such, "flimsy evidence", then why did Henry VII suppress it and order every copy destroyed? Why also did Henry repeal it without having it read out first, a major breach of protocol? Henry clearly considered its contents convincing. Also the criticism of Edward IV was probably bunged in later after Buckingham's rebellion (Rosemary Horrox argues) in order to emphasise the lack of virtue of the rebels.
He sure was a bad man. Firstly, he tried to backdate his reign to the time before Richard was king. He had to abandon that idea due to public outcry. He could be very devious in achieving his goals, (like his son) and apparently wasn't very nice to his wife. I don't think much of his mother either.
Couldn't the princes have just ran away, possibly abroad as they saw there lives better off not being royal. Seeing as their father had been partly destroyed physically and mentally by being king. Edward V had been supposedly quite ill so may have died after running away. Whilst Richard (Pervin Warbeck) must have returned a few years later as he may have missed being Royal.
Richard (Pervin Warbeck) must have run away to Flanders and possibly changed his name to Pervin Warbeck. He must have learned Flemish and moved to Tournai, Tournaisis (where 'Perkin' claimed he was born in his 'confession') he would only have known of this place if he'd been there himself. Perkin Warbeck and Richard of Shrewsbury must have been his duel personalities. He must have been adopted by the man and women 'Perkin' said were his parents and he must have become the apprentice of a Breton merchant. His arrival to Ireland must have reminded him of the desperate situation in England. When he met many York supporters in Ireland he must have known deep down in his heart that he had to be Richard of Shrewsbury again and make things right
I actually had the a very similar theory myself. Though I wondered if they were killed before the Battle of Bosworth by traitors within Richard III's own household. After all, he was betrayed at the battle, which shows conspiracy was already at work. I believed gold of the enemy already penetrated the walls of the fortress. The Princes were found at the foot of the stairs in a chest, which as you pointed out, Tyrrell confessed to under torture. If they were killed before the battle of Bosworth, Richard III would have to keep it quiet anyway or people would think he did it. But I think your version makes more sense.
I still think it likely that Richard removed the boys to Burgundy. I think that Edward may well have died on the journey or shortly after. and I think that Richard may well have reappeared and called Perkin Warbeck.
I think that's possible as well. It would be more reasonable to let them go to Burgundy than just kill them. I feel that some people can exaggerate things like this by saying he killed his own nephews who were still children. I know it was a different time and it was normal to kill family members (unfortunately), Richard in my opinion would never had the heart to kill those boys.
Wendy Hull IMHO, Richard had no need to kill either boy. Parliament had already made him king. Why kill the boys and not the girls? The war between Matilda (Maud) and Stephen showed that the idea of a woman being queen in her own right was not unthinkable. The strongest argument against Richard being the murderer (if murderer there was) is that the rest of the heirs survived quite nicely throughout the rest of Richard's brief lifetime.
Nancy Benefiel That's true. Many people think Richard would be the murderer because he had access to the tower and had the "motives". They also say that Richard hated his nephews because in his eyes, they were Woodvilles. I don't see how Richard would hate his nephews and murder them because of this. But I agree with you, Richard would've most likely kill off the other heirs, legitimate or not. He also could've killed Henry Tudor since he had been a powerful threat to the throne by 1483.
Wendy Hull Richard was on his very public progress at the point that it is claimed the boys were killed. There were records of expenditures for them postdating this period. One of the most interesting is harness for a horse. Obviously the boys were not going to be doing much riding within the walls of the Tower of London.
Richard was only next in line to the throne because the Princes had no claim to it, being illegitimate.There is also the issue of Edward IV's alleged bastardy for which there is evidence. Richard had a sound claim without needing to resort to killing the boys. Richard was a pious man, in that day and age to kill a child was a heinous sin.
Anyone think that either Buckingham or Hastings could have had something to do with the deaths of the princes? Both had their eye on the throne. The manner of Hastings's execution suggests he might have done something quite awful.
Richard's actions weighting him with guilt and Tyrell's confession finds Richard guilty unless another evidence finds him innocent! 1) Richard sides with Edward's IV enemy and exiled Duke of Buckingham. Why he wants to do that if you have the best intentions for the princes? Richard simply wants allies in usurping of the crown and Buckingham had an army in case of need. 2) The interception of Prince Edward V and the imprisonment of Earl Rivers in Northampton along the disobedience of Richard when the Prince asked to release his uncle. There is no proof of a coup of woodvilles against Richard. Earl Rivers was simply accompanying the Prince to London for his coronation and Richard ''wanted the same thing''. However, Richard simply finds excuses and cut off the Prince's support (Rivers) because he NEVER wanted in reality this coronation and it can only be undone when prince is neutralised from support and power. 3) The execution of Hastings. Although Hastings did not have good relations with Woodvilles he was a faithful supporter of Edward the IV and would see his son becoming a King. Richard simply could not switch Hastings to his side with Buckingham and once again, he has to eliminate Hastings in order to cut off a big support of the Prince. 4) Richard illegitimates his nephews on the word of a Bishop who appears from nowhere but in ''perfect timing''. Why he never appeared before? Suddenly decided to reveal the truth? He simply seek revenge for his imprisonment by Edward IV. Robert Stillington was not ''holly'' at all. He took part later in the plot, in an attempt to put Lambert Simnel on the throne. He was the impostor of Edward V. So why he did that? Perhaps the guilt? Or the Bishop had his own ambitions? Would you really trust the word of this man? His actions telling me ''no, no. no''! 5) If the Ricardians so badly want to believe the word of a Bishop who appeared like a ghost from nowhere then I don't understand why they don't believe the confession of Jamie Tyrell who admitted in the presence of King Henry VII and Queen Elisabeth that he killed the princes under the Richard III instructions. You can't be ''picky'' to believe one thing and not the other. So here we go, unless you Ricardians find evidence or confession that Richard did not kill the princes, we have Tyrell's confession who admits that Richard was responsible.
Tyrrell's 'confession' was circulated after his execution, there is no way of assessing its validity. It also jars in comparison the the pardons and appointments that Henry Vll had given to Tyrrell earlier. I wonder what they were for? Did Tyrrell carry out the murders on the orders of Henry Vll, and was he later executed to make sure he did not reveal the truth? It's as plausible as any other theory.
I don't think testing will ever happen, to see about the 2 princes, but, maybe since Richard has been found, it could be a science thing. Would be very interesting to see DNA.
There have been claims over the years back then. But I'm not sure of any recent claims of being descendents. It would be really interesting to see if there are any modern day claimants. If so and they do DNA testing they could at least weed out those who aren't descendents. Im rather surprised that I haven't heard of any modern day claimants to say they are descendents of any of Edward IV illegitimate children or even Henry VIII. Although aren't the current English Monarchy supposed to be descendents of Mary Boleyn by Henry VIII?
in my opinion, the theory that she sebt an imposter to the tower to save her child is very plausible. its safe to say, by the time they came for her other son she knew what they wanted him for. but how would someone know if they are a descendant of any monarch? I imagine to find out you would need to be interested in your family tree and be able to go that far back, and not everyone has the patience. I might even be a descendant of one monarchs illegitimate offspring...god only knows how many of those were conceived over history. fascinating!!
Perkin Warbeck, google him...Perkin Warbeck (c. 1474 - 23 November 1499) was a pretender to the English throne during the reign of King Henry VII of England. By claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, the younger son of King Edward IV, one of the "Princes in the Tower", Warbeck was a significant threat to the newly established Tudor dynasty, and gained support outside England.
Jeni Jones Okay, say Elizabeth Woodville wanted to find a boy (IN SANCTURY) who's the right age (approximately), height, rich clothes in his size, looks like Richard, talks like him or at least doesn't have a working class accent. And oh, yes, no one at the tower would recognize him as a ringer. How would she find IN SANCTUARY a bastard of Edward IV. I don't imagine she kept them on tap. When she went into sanctuary it was in a hurry. She barely had time to rob the treasure, get her kids together, get their clothes/her clothes together. She had little time to find one of his by-blows. She couldn't look to Londoners to help her. There was no Edward IV to ride to the rescue and reward those who helped her like the last time. And who's going to find this bastard of Edward/replacement for her? The Woodville men would have scattered to the four winds. If Richard found them, it would be the block or at best imprisonment. She had few friends by this point, the nobility loathed her and her family, and thought the best place for her sons was with Richard. The church representative when Buckingham was badgering her about giving her son assured her that he would personally make sure no harm came to him. I don't know if she totally believed him, but there was little she could do at that point. Richard had surrounded the sanctuary with his men and had threatened that he would break sanctuary and god knows what would have happened then. In short, don't think it was likely.
I just wonder why the Queen of England isn’t allowing the testing of the DNA of the princes (if it is them). Also, I don’t think Richard killed them. If they were already declared illegitimate, they posed no threat to Richard’s throne. I think Buckingham did it.
I believe that Elizabeth Woodville's moves are the key for this plot. Whoever is able to clarify her moves, put them in the right order and maybe add something new will possibly shed light on what really happened. Main doubts: If ever, why she was silent when Stillington's version came out? And why Edward IV did not take any precaution knowing that his heirs were at risk? Moreover, why the hell she sent Richard to the Tower together with the elder prince? Suicide move under every point of view. My feeling is that possibly Richard and Elizabeth have chosen to protect the princes by temporarly removing them from the hotspot, being aware of even more than one conspiracy against the Yorkists. (Margaret Beaufort, and Hastings could have been two different faces of the same coin or even two different attempts to grab the crown). Then after Bosworth it has been relatively easy for the Tudors to wipe them out of history, and put the blame on Richard. Both the Queen and the Lord Protector were very well aware that England could not be ruled by a boy or a weak King, like the Lancastrians proved over the previous decades. Again, the White Queen (or maybe even Elizabeth of York, as she ran to the Tower with her husband to make sure that the last mouth able to talk was properly shut up) has the answer.
+Mauro Magrassi Your first statement about Elizabeth Woodville is very true. Elizabeth Woodville's moves are crucial to understanding what happens in the months after her husband's death. New information could shed light on many things. Her thoughts on Stillington have not been recorded but many believe that Edward IV executed his own brother, the Duke of Clarence, because he made similar charges about Edward IV being pre-contracted to marry another woman and he may have even been given the information by Stillington. Elizabeth Woodville did not want to hand over her younger son to Richard III. She took him into sanctuary with her. It is believed she really had no choice but to hand him over. If Elizabeth Woodville actually made the decision to declare her son's illegitimate then why was she in sanctuary? This idea that a child king was such a problem is not a genuine concern. The reality is that King Henry VI had no problem when he was a child king. He had regents and advisers. He made it to adulthood without a problem. He was much beloved by everyone around him and they all agreed he was the rightful king. His later problems as an adult had nothing to do with him being a child king. So the Lancastrians did not prove anything. In fact they proved the opposite as far as a child king was concerned and there were many successful child kings. Edward III, Henry III and Louis IX in France. The general idea of a child king is not what motivates Richard III. It is a child king with Elizabeth Woodville as its mother.
+El Grande Gringo Fantastico You went too far, of course the game had to been far more subtle and complex. The Woodville young king found too many enemies at the same time on both sides so he was backfired before Bosworth. How precisely they did, or in other words how they forced the White Queen to leave both guys go to the Tower would be great to discover.
El, the tower was also a royal residence and it's likely if the princes lived, then they would've been kept in the tower to be kept hidden. It's not all that complicated.
+Wendy Hull I do not think Elizabeth Woodville wanted to give her son up to King Richard III. Why else go into sanctuary? She wanted protection and thought she could hide him in the abbey. There is no other reason for her to go into sanctuary. These are obvious motives here. A former queen of England does not go into sanctuary and leave her royal residence for fun. She did it because she was truly frightened and she would not give up her younger son unless she believed she had no real choice and that in doing so she may be able to save the lives of her other two sons who were imprisoned by King Richard III..... AND that is what they were. IMPRISONED. King Richard III beheaded her younger son from her first marriage, Richard Grey, and as El pointed out, maybe she thought that by showing good will to Richard he would release her brother and her son. Again her motives are obvious.
One correction and a few additional items to fill out the story. First, the correction: The law, Titulus Regius, wasn't passed until 1484, a half year after Richard had been crowned. Richard ascended based on a petition, which might have been signed by many of the members of Parliament, but it was not a law that allowed Richard to ascend to the throne. Titulus Regius was based on two cannon laws. One addressed the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler, and the other addressed the improper wedding between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. It was held in a private, unconsecrated chapel, and the banns had not been read publicly, as required. This was known all across Europe. There was no defense of Edward V's legitimacy once this issue was raised. Titulus Regius primarily focused on the lechery of Edward IV, probably as a way to stir the emotions of the people against Edward IV and the legitimacy of his heirs, but the factual issue of the unlawful wedding was also spelled out in that document. That alone was enough to disinherit Edward V, and it was undeniably true. The banns had not been read as required. Something else to consider is that Thomas More never published his history. It can hardly be dismissed outright as More's work of Tudor propaganda if he never made it public, assuming he was the actual author. Might it have been altered by those who published it several years after his death? Those versions differ from each other. History has been unfair to Richard III, but I think has also been unfair to Thomas More. Like Richard, More was a virtuous and pious man of very high integrity. Why would he knowingly spread such lies about Richard? The fact is that he didn't. He kept this history to himself. Markham (1906) suggested that Morton had written the history (and he's not the only one who thinks so), and that More was either copying it for himself or translating it from Latin. A copy of the history was found among More's papers when he died, and it was in More's handwriting. This is the only evidence that he was the author. There are several versions in English and in Latin. There is no evidence which is the original history or which version has provenance. It seems an unfinished work, but Markham points out that the history ends when Morton left England. Morton was an enemy to Richard. He was a Tudor loyalist from the beginning. Richard had imprisoned him for his role in the same plot for which he had Hastings beheaded. This makes far more sense to me than More writing such a slanderous pack of lies when in every other way he was such an honest man with unimpeachable integrity.
I've always thought More was just transcribing Morton's work, became disgusted with the obvious impossibilities of it, and quit. Secretly killing two children who were no threat to him was simply not in Richard's nature. Richard lived his entire life by his motto "loyalty binds me". That his name became anathema after his death is such a tragedy.
Nancy Benefiel While I don't think Richard III was the villain often portrayed, I am sceptical as to how far his motto may explain his character. Richard was unfailingly loyal to his brother - until his brother died. Then, he lost no time believing the first rumour (i.e., the marriage contract to Eleanor Butler, to which there was only one single self-professed witness, a witness known to be no friend to the queen), separating his brother's children from their family and keeping them out of sight of anyone but a few people he chose, breaking the oath he had taken to protect his brother's son's interestes and see him become a reigning king one day. And then he put the crown on his own head. This way of proceeding wouldn't have counted as very loyal even if Richard did not kill the boys (of which crime, indeed, he may be entirely innocent).
uclmu2008 I think Richard supported Edward V as long as he could feasibly do so. Everybody could plainly see that the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodeville was improper. As the Titulus Regius pointed out (and was publicly known in 1483 and earlier), the marriage was held on unconsecrated ground, and there was no public reading of the banns. As long as no one objected to that publicly, everything was fine, but when it became a public issue, I think there was no way Richard could retain credibility while supporting his nephew, who was now a known bastard. He was the only unquestionably legitimate heir remaining among Richard of York and Cecily's descendants. Edward's kids were bastards, and Clarence's kids carried his attainder. The next male heir is Richard. If not Richard, then there would be chaos determining which of their Lancastrian enemies would claim the throne, Buckingham or Henry Tudor. That's kinda what happened in the end anyway. Edward IV won the War of the Roses (or so it seemed at the time). Out of loyalty to Edward IV, Richard did what he could do keep the throne in Yorkist hands and not reverse his brother's victory. Again, kinda what happened anyway.Richard lost the penultimate (though ultimately decisive) battle in the War of the Roses. Richard III showed his loyalty to Edward V by stepping up as the only unquestionably viable Yorkist heir when the boy's cause was lost. He kept the boy's family in power. That's my unlikely hypothesis. (All hypotheses are unlikely when trying to answer the question of how Richard came to power and the fate of the two princes. Something very unlikely happened though.)
uclmu2008 Bishop Stillington had no reason to make up a story about a pre contract if it wasn't true. The hole in the corner wedding between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville was always suspicious, accompanied by stories of drugs and witchcraft. If the marriage was invalid, Richard was obligated to prevent illegitimate offspring from taking the crown. Richard did not separate the boys from their mother. Elizabeth chose to take herself (and a hefty chunk of the treasury) into sanctuary. It was the norm for the monarch to inhabit the Tower apartments in the days leading up to his coronation. There was nothing unusual about Edward staying in the royal apartments, nor of Richard joining him to keep him company
For my article on the anniversary of Richard III's ascension to the throne and some of the misconceptions of his reign, including the murder of the princes in the tower, please click: www.crackedhistory.com/june-26-1483-richard-plantagenet-duke-gloucester-proclaims-king-richard-iii-england/
Richard put them in the Tower. That makes him responsbie for their deaths, regardless. I have always believed whatever happened, happened on Richard's watch, so to speak.
elleanarchy There are conflicting accounts as to how the younger boy came to the Tower, and they range from Elizabeth sending him freely, for his protection, to Elizabeth being forced to give him up with the threat that otherwise he'd be taken out of sanctuary by force, since he was but a child to whom the concept of sanctuary did not apply. There are a number of more nuanced theories between these extremes; but it is by no means certain that she sent him willingly, or indeed trustingly, into Richard's care.
All kings at that time went to their coronations from the Tower of London. They were not in prison there, they were in the royal apartments. Richard came to the tower to be a companion to his brother. His safety was guaranteed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I doubt the Archbishop would have been silent if something had happened to him. I also doubt that Elizabeth would have written to her elder son urging him to return to England if she thought he was in danger from Richard.
kennashan There's no evidence that his nephews were not alive. They had been declared illegitimate by council and parliament. Richard had been crowned king. He had nothing to gain by killing them.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO interesting, I heard the only one at the time with ANYTHING to gain from their deaths was Margaret Beaufort, (which could explain the line of psychopathy passed down the generations to her grandson ;) ) and she was most likely the one who done away with the boys to secure the throne for her son. I like that idea peculiarly! Fact is, there are SO many potential suspects in this. However, I DO think the one with the least to gain was Richard and I don't think their mother would hand them over to someone she didn't trust wholly, we could question her judgement but his being guilty has too many holes and like your man said the only info available was written by propagandists of the Tudor Dynasty so it is a question that will go unanswered for many years to come -OH PLS SOMEONE INVENT A TIME MACHINE!!!!
It is difficult to say because, there was so much politics. Lady Margaret stirred everything. She created the feeling of untrust between Elizabeth and Richard otherwise she whould not seek sanctuary. Anne Neville was working on this as well, how to get rid off the princes and her son to be next heir to the throne. The princes were not killed from either Margaret or Neville. That was a great sin so I believe they Locked them somewhere secretly in the tower where only a few people could acces.
Henry must have kept it from his wife then. They were supposed to have had a happy marriage. I suspect she wouldn’t have been happy with Henry killing her brothers.
The only person who could ever have profited from the death of the two Woodville princes was Henry Tudor, no other scenario makes any sense at all, there is something about the portrait of Henry Tudor that the artist captured, the artist captures a face with an expression and aura that exudes evil, he has always given me the chills, he had to have had them killed just as he had poor Perkin Warbeck killed, anyone who believes any Tudor propaganda is just darn crazy.
Because the bones are not those of the two boys in question, not even from the same time in history, the bones are most likely the bones of one of Elizabeths or Stuart prisoners because by that time the Tower was a dark place but in Richards time it was more like the palace. The whole thing has been a cover up ever since by every monarch since Henry VII, none of the monarchs since him were legitimate except in the case of might equals right it keeps the myth of lineage to Aelfred The Great alive
I'm sorry. I have a hard time seeing this way. I do believe the Tower was a prison for the princes, not a royal residence . You cannot deny the children were taken by Richard and put in the Tower never to be seen again.
In 1502 we have James Tyrrell confessing to the murders of the two young princes, under Richard's orders. His trial was attended by the king and queen and he was facing charges of treason. Knowing that he was to die, Tyrell made, it is said while in the Tower, a confession of his guilt as to the princes; Dighton, his accomplice, was also examined and confessed. It is the substance of this confession that forms the history of the murder as we know it, though the text has not been preserved.
While I do think Shakespeare did blacken Richard's name, I still feel this issue is a stumbling block to reform his reputation. Law or not, the boys would always be a threat, and liquidating them would be the easiest solution. Alternatively, it's possible some flunkie exceeded their orders and Richard, aghast, said nothing afterward to minimize damage. As for them still being alive leading up to Bosworth, I also find that unlikely. Surely, rumours of the boys disappearance would have been flying over London alienating Yorkists, which were bound to reach Richard's ears. The easiest thing to dispel that would have been to trot them out or at least let them play and be seen.. but Richard didn't do that if they were still alive. Moreover, I'm sure the gossip mongers must have asked servants about who was doing the boys' laundry, feeding them, cutting their hair etc if they were cooped up in the tower in 1484, 1485.. but likely got no satisfactory answer.
As I understand it, the Princes just vanished from the Tower in 1483. Anything could have happened - murder, died of natural causes, moved to another location or spirited out of the Tower. Richard remains the prime suspect for whatever happened as - let's face it - he had motive, method and opportunity. Henry VII had motive, but not opportunity. But it does seem a stupid move for Richard to kill them if he did - he must have known people would guess - even in those times, killing kids was shocking. Once the story started, Richard's name was destroyed so much it led to his downfall, yet he made no denial of the accusation. Why?
Goodiesfanful Henry VII actually could have had opportunity. The Yorkist children were living, most of them, protected in the North of England. Clarence's son, Edward and Richard's illegitimate son John, both wound up in Henry's hands. A notation in Richard's account books records the expenditure for clothing and "harness" for the "Lord bastard". Only Edward and Richard were lords. Neither would have need of a horse in the Tower. If one or both of them was sent to Sutton, they may well have been found there by Henry with the rest of the children. After the repeal of Titulus Regius restored their legitimacy, either boy's claim to the crown would far exceed Richard's. Both John and Edward died at Tudor hands, it's not hard to imagine the princes may have. Henry's motivation was far stronger than Richard's. Richard was the crowned king. Only his death could change that.
Nancy Benefiel The " Lord bastard" was probably King Richard's own son and I am not sure that his demise was at the hands of Tudor. In fact I am not sure that it is known what exactly happened to Richard"s. son. As for the accusation that Henry Tudor had opportunity after the Battle of Bosworth, well, it is just absurd. Anyone against Tudor would only have to release them and let their identities be known and it would have been war from then on out. If the boys were in the tower they would have been released. No matter where they were, once Richard III was dead they would have been shown in order to stop Tudor from becoming king by his enemies. Think about it. People were trying to break the two princes out of the Tower. It is my belief that Buckingham told everyone that the two princes were dead and that there was no point in trying to break them out of the Tower. It was in King Richard's interest to not only kill them but to then lie about in order to confuse his enemies. Buckingham seems to know they are dead and everyone thinks they are dead by September of 1483. Why? There is a reason they are believed to be dead and that people mark August of 1483 as the last time they are ever seen. Buckingham tells everyone they are dead and when people demand to see them the two boys are never brought out. It does not take long to start a rebellion and rightly so.
Kristin Harris Unless the skeletons at Westminster are determined at some point to be those of Edward and Richard we will never know for sure what happened to them. Even if they prove to be the boys they will not tell us who killed them. The entry in Richard's account rolls, well after the disappearance refers to the support of a living individual, the Lord Bastard. Richard's illegitimate son, John was not a lord and was never referred to as such. Edward retained several of his titles after he was declared illegitimate. Following the Battle of Bosworth, Henry acquired the other children in Richard's "nursery", John and Clarence's son Edward. Why would it have been impossible for him to acquire Edward and Richard at the same time? How can you assume they would have been released? The last thing Henry would have allowed was for two Yorkist heirs to live?John and Edward were both executed. If the princes died on Richard's watch, it would have been to his benefit to present the bodies to the public with some excuse of illness to account for their deaths and bury them with all pomp and circumstance, as his brother did with the body of Henry VI We know Edward was seriously ill and attended by a doctor. The worst thing for Richard was the mystery surrounding them. It simply encouraged rumour. Richard was many things, but he was not a fool. He was declared king by parliament and crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was hardly likely that he would be overthrown by a 12 year old boy, minor kings had been the scourge of England many times
+El Grande Gringo Fantastico "All of Europe was full of rumours of their deaths"? Where did you come up with that one? Because Mancini said he heard rumours he admitted he could not confirm? That's hardly all of Europe. El Gringo. be honest, Bishop John Morton hated Richard, he knew Richard stood between him and an archbishopric. Every one of these rumours seems to have originated with him.
+Goodiesfanful Why are you so certain that Henry did not have opportunity? He imprisoned Edward, Clarence's son and John, Richard's illegitimate son. Eventually, He had them both killed. What makes you so certain he didn't get his hands on the princes? They were a far bigger threat to him than they were to Richard. As for not showing them to the public to quell rumours, in the first place, other than Mancini, and Richard would have had no way of knowing about him, there was very little curiosity in England over the boys whereabouts during Richard's short reign. That came afterward and was assiduously spread by Henry and his shill John Morton. The lack of contemporary uproar makes me doubt that they just vanished. I think that the people who actually had contact with them, the servants at the Tower, their mother and sisters, knew exactly where they were. Since part of the reason for removing them from the Tower would have been to prevent attempts to kidnap them, it's unlikely Richard would make their location public knowledge. There was a long tradition in the Tyrell household that the princes lived with them for some time, along with their mother and sisters. They my well have gone there from the Tower and remained until Tyrell took them to their Aunt Margaret's court in Burgundy. There is that pesky notation in the Burgundian account rolls of moneys spent "for the raising of Yorkist heirs". Edward and Richard are the only Yorkist heirs not accounted for.
Quite tellingly, the wording of the Act of Parliament which confirmed Tudor's kingship made no mention of his hereditary claim either through his marriage or via his Beaufort descent. Perhaps even more tellingly, it does not attempt to cite right of conquest either. ."Be it enacted by this present parliament...that the inheritance of the crowns of the realm of England remain in the person of our now sovereign lord King Harry the VIIth"
You make an interesting argument. However, live heirs [even questonable ones] have always been a threat - Richard lll, still has the best motive. I doubt it would have been possible to keep the 2 boys alive in the Tower for 3 years without someone blabbing it. But, not having been there personally, I still like to hear alternative theories. I was in the Tower and was shown the room where the 2 boys were presumably murdered back in the 60's. I have been interested in this ever since.
Somewhat reasonable statement, Mr. Sparacus, but neverthelss vulnerabel in more ways than one. Firstly, you say that Titulus Regius was by itself enough for Richard and he didn't need to have the princes killed, yet around 13:00 mins. you unwittingly provide a very good motive for Richard to dispose of the Princes - that their physical appearance might have instigated more turmoil. So despite Titulus Regius he still had reason to get them out of the way
I was reading how King Henry VII actually had a rather nice tomb made for King Richard III several years after the Battle of Bosworth. He also forced Elizabeth Woodville into retirement from the court and confiscated her land around the same time. It seemed like Henry Tudor felt righteous in his invasion and that he was bringing about Justice. While no one knew for certain, it was believed the Princes were murdered in 1483. Some believed that it was because Buckingham told people but I do not think Tudor had anything to do with it and discovered only later that there was more to the situation. There was something off with Elizabeth Woodville and that Richard III did not have the most to lose by the the Princes remaining alive.
No. I am implying that a lot of people hated her. People assume that since Richard III had the most to lose if she got back into power that he must have been the one to murder the two princes. How did Richard III ascend to the throne so easily though. She angered other people. A lot of people wanted her out of power and to not ever come back.
I believe Richard was involved. The moment he decided to usurp the throne from his his nephew he knew he was painting a target on both boys back. He set the tone, basically saying kill them if you want. Even if he didn't kill them with his own hands he was involved.
uniquesongstress That is the way I use to see it as well. She was a commoner and that explained the dislike but I do not believe that any longer. Warwick really hated her and went so far that, to me, it implies there was a lot more going on there. Warwick executed her father and brother. Buckingham really hated her as well. Again her commoner status is the excuse but to have such hatred to your own sister-in-law and so on.
1Richard III was the lord protector of the Princes and responsible for their safety even if he did not order the princes to be killed it was his responsibility to keep them safe and he failed! 2.He decided to copy the tactic that his brother Edward used of murdering the threat to the thrown. If killing King Henry worked for his brother why not use it himself. 3. He thought declaring the princes illegitimate would make the fact that he murdered them more palpable and or be an alibi.
Agreed! These young boys were killed just because they were born of royalty and couldn't help but be pawns. The whole unjustness of it all rankles me but such is life......... :(
If Richard didn't do it, why didn't he just show the princes when the rumors were going on about him murdering them? And why weren't they seen if they were no threat? The princes were seen playing in the courtyard, then seen in the window, then never seen again.
Your logic is completely flawed - firstly if Richard murdered the two boys it might have caused revulsion but it couldn't cause rebellion because you cannot champion the Royal claim of a dead person, so as repulsed as people might have been people would have had no choice but to swallow it. Secondly, if the now illegitimate Edward V was no longer a threat why were the two princes made to remain in the tower. Richard III clearly had the two children murdered. Saying that a law made them illegitimate is nonsense, laws can always be repealed, the death of a Royal claimant cannot be repealed.
@@dobermangirl6549 It's not about being honorable or not it's about the facts. If Richard was indeed getting rid of the boys to stop uprising why not produce the bodies? He had the perfect chance to shift the blame on Buckingham yet he did not, why? Also why kill Edwards children but leave Georges son alive and well?
And finally, why is Tyrrell's pardon assumed to have been related to the princes' murder? He was a close aide of Richard and as such had good reason to fear Henry VII's ascension despite not being present at Bosworth Field. Notwithstanding the above, if there is irrefutable evidence that Henry VII had found the princes very much alive in the Tower, it would then be clear who actually had them killed. Until then, it should be a hung jury (at best for Richard, may I add) ;)
Poppycock. The princes were last seen alive a number of months prior to the death of Richard III. Edward V, the older prince, was Richard's prisoner, and Richard also summarily executed the prince's adult supporters, including his uncle, Lord Rivers, on trumped up charges of treason. Richard also succeeded in persuading the widowed queen into turning over the younger prince to Him from sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. There is no evidence that the princes were alive at the end of Richard's reign, and as ironically noted, Richard had a powerful incentive to "bury" the young princes. Richard III's entire history after the death of his brother, Edward IV, shows that he was well aware of the danger that therir continuing existence presented to his crown, and that he was just the man to do them in.
Is there no effort to check the age of the bones of the princes to see when they really died? If Henry VII was the real culprit shouldn't history be corrected?
But traitors were usually executed in public and the bodies or at least the heads displayed on the city gates. These were definitely the bones of children, unusual (altho not unprecedented) for a traitor. And they weren't just buried; they were concealed.
I am a skeptical. Thus, I cannot say "yes" for making Richard III a murder or the alternatives. I can only say every clue is possible but none is for sure because there is no concrete evidence to prove any of them. I do feel for Richard III to kill his nephews is less believable than for the King of Tudor to eliminate the two threats, because no matter what they were his blood brother's sons.
the victors write history ? or at least, affect the plays of Shakespeare...! if it is to be believed that the beauforts and tudor arranged the disappearances but richard iii, house of york, takes the blame
There are meny therys,but I from my point of view and what I read myself into this think the princes died of illness,something that was not uncomen spetialy when it comes to children at that time,some sorces even mentions that one of the princes were not well,and if one became ill it was very easy for the other brother to catch it,and for the corpses not being shown could be that they had to burry them in a hurry becose the illness was contagus,and to dig them up would be sacrelige at that time to spetialy to royals. Also the fact that Elizabeth Woodville played a part at Richards inner circle signaled that she never tought he killed the boys,and as for Henry makeing Eliabeth Woodville retier you should remember she was a dower queen,and her daughter Elizabeth of York married Henry and became queen and should take pressense,and the land takeing was to secure that his children(her grandchildren)got the innheretense after her as she could not owne anything in a convent,never accuseing Henry of murdering the boys eather,or anyone else is a very strong signal that the boys died of illness.
I doubt that. If they had died naturally while still in the tower, their deaths would have been publicized and most likely would have been recorded in their doctor's notebooks. The doctor (whose name I can never remember) referred to the older son being ill, but never to his death. If they were sent out of the country, Edward could well have died on the journey.
Well there could be good reson they did not publisise it,one could be the innerstruggel remember at time they think princes died Richard was regent/protector of the boys and by announsing their deaths would been desasterus for him at that point
Edward, the elder brother, suffered from some kind of infection in his jaw, according to the doctor's records. It's unlikely that it was contagious. Richard's claim to the throne lay in the question of the legitimacy of the marriage between his brother, the king, and Elizabeth Woodville. If either or both of the boys had died of natural causes, there would have been a public funeral. Even if they had been murdered on Richard's order, there most likely would have been a claim of natural death and a public funeral. Secrecy on the question of the lives of his nephews could, in no way, benefit Richard.
Well Richard was in a week possition in the beginning of his brothers death when he was regent as meny pepol whent after him,if he had announsed their deaths weather they were natural or not it would have been desasterus as it would have been used as reson for invation of england(much quicker) by Henry,or other claimants to throne at time at same time when he knew he was in week possition. As for the princes health remember that child mortalety were high even for royals at that time,and illness would come quick and kill quick and proberbly wasent recorded at Richards orders. But one thing is for sure if they were murderd why would Elizabeth be in Richards inner circle,and marry her daughter off to Henry if she belived they murderd them,thats why I belive they died of illness. BTW think you also have some good points as well Nancy,and it does make me think history somethink I love to think about:)
Nancy Benefiel The only suggestion Edward V had an infection comes from the bones found in the Tower. The older child's skeleton showed signs of chronic osteomyelitis of the jaw. No one contemporary ever recorded Edward having such an infection though.
Richard the 3rd had three close guards with him, one of them had keys to the tower. Richard knew all of he happenings around him and even he didn't physically murder the princes, he had another loyal guard Tyrell complete it. When the bodies were found in the white tower in a box under the staircase, there were two skeletons with clothing and capes that was made of velvet from the era of the 1470 onwards. There were no other missing royal children from that time. This was a time of violence and during the war of the roses when the English crown was uncertain. This was all taken from Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower if you would like further information and I believe it is the most credible.
Yes Krista. Everyone forgets that Richard did not know he would be dead in two years from his coronation. He hoped to return to London in triumph and continue his reign for many more years, leaving sons and grandsons to continue his dynasty. If the princes were still alive in August 1485, what did Richard intend to do with them, and when did he intend to do it? He had three options: 1. Release them. 2. Keep them prisoners for the rest of their lives, perhaps 50 years. 3. Do away with them. It was a no-brainer. Why people get all emotional about a man who died over five centuries ago is beyond me.
ian hood Well look, we don't get emotional it's just that we're trying to see who he really was as a king and as a man. Was he evil? Did he murder the princes?, etc are questions always told and yet we don't have an answer. Richard also thought that he knew he wasn't going to live after Bosworth.
Wendy Hull From everything I've read he was completely confident he would survive Bosworth. He had many more men than Richard, he was an experienced leader and warrior and except for the Stanleys he thought he had the loyalty of the nobility or most of them. As far as I know, like his brother Edward, he had never lost a battle. I'd be interested to know where you heard that.
One forgets that Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII, also had access to the Princes and had every reason to want them dead because they were also an obstacle to her son's possibility of claiming the throne.
+Robert Pavlick How did she have access to them? She did not prior to Buckingham's rebellion and they were most likely dead by that time.
Kristin Harris her husband had access to the tower and the princes, thus she had access.
Becky Richardson Her husband did not have access to them. There is no way that Richard III would have allowed a loyal supporter of Edward IV near the two princes. If your argument is that Stanley was Constable of the Tower then stop and please research. Stanley was not Constable of the Tower in the Summer of 1483. He did not become Constable until after Buckingham's Rebellion. The two boys were, most likely, already dead.
Bella Jam Wow. Interesting theory. Well, first I think that after the rightful heirs were dead, what England wanted most was a king sitting on a throne, no upheavals, no interference of trade; in short normalcy. Granted, a lot a people did know but a lot didn't. Clothed in the heavy garments of the time, his scoliosis wouldn't have shown.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, Henry conspired (he was in France at the time, you know. He also didn't have a lot of money)
with some of Richard's men to get into the Tower of London? Just because they are Richard's men doesn't mean the guards will let them in. You would need a lot of money to bribe, who? You need to now who you can safely bribe and make sure none of his loyal mates can her what's going on. And remember, Henry had no money to speak of. The problem here is that to get in the tower and talk to his men in the Tower you had to possess a warrant signed PERSONALLY by Richard. He didn't give them out to just anybody. Probably doctors/priests/others he trusted absolutely.
I'm not an expert on medieval poison, but I think you would show signs of being poisoned after you die. I'm not sure that's true of all poisons, though. If the boys did show signs of being poisoned, Richard would then be in a quandary. If he displayed the bodies, people would say Richard did it. If he didn't show the bodies, people would still say Richard killed them. I would say though that a doctor who actually made it in to see the princes to treat them would be absolutely trusted and trustworthy.
I'm kinda new to the what could have happened to the boys in the tower and when/if/under what circumstances did they die would Richard have displayed them. I've ordered Alison Weir's book "Princes in the Tower" book because I want to read up on just the theories you have. You might get it also. Got it on ebay.
I also believe Margaret Beaufort was responsible, she and her then exiled son had the most to gain. She gained favor with Richard III through her husband and due to the ambitious marriage of a notorious turncoat who at the time was a Yorkist (his brother and he both were notorious for being on each side of the battlefield and turning their armies on losing sides.) So it's not really that farfetched that she passed along the order. She was convinced her son's claim was for god and risked most of her life trying to get his lands and titles back through all the kings during the War of the Roses, in which she had already become familiar with mortal threats to her, her son's, and countrymen's lives. She also wanted her son on the throne because again, to her it was god's will and that to her was indisputable.
Also, King Richard had lost his only son and heir and sickly wife at an early age. There is evidence he was holding onto the princes in case he needed them should he not produce a new heir keeping the family line alive. The country hadn't welcomed him at first with open arms, only when he declared them illegitimate did he gain the ability to take the crown, but while alive they were still playing chips and made him look less monstrous to his realm.
When Henry VII took the throne he couldn't afford to get his own hands dirty, and there is plenty evidence they had "disappeared" by the time he hit the English shore from France by eyewitness accounts that they were gone. Margaret, who did have servants, messangers, (against her house arrest by her husband who allowed this behavior if he was to become possible step-father to the king) who may have been able to carry out these orders while cloaking it in Richard's name, giving the country more reason to back her son to "avenge the Princes" and "marry their sister to make all right again." The country needed a good reason to support Henry's watered down claim. I believe the person with greatest ability, money, and reason to have this done was his mother. The pardons may be bare, but who would accuse their own mother and threaten their own new reputation? Not Henry Tudor. It was his mother I think.
I've leaned towards the theory that Buckingham killed the Princes and tried to frame Richard for it. Buckingham felt his own claim on the throne was strong, and he was also collaborating with the Tudors behind Richard's back. One of Richard's fatal flaws was that he was too trusting. He had appointed Buckingham as the protector of the two princes with regard for their welfare.
That's true
bobbyanna How did Buckingham get in the tower? he would need Richard's permission. Unless he heavily bribed one of Richard's guards which I suppose is possible. Although, how would you explain a suddenly rich guard(s). I can't imagine the guards were brain trusts.
He was the second most powerful man in the country at the time and some highly regarded historians believe that as constable of England he wouldn't have needed permission from the King to enter that part of the tower.
To be honest, I had not considered Buckingham as a suspect but you present a plausible theory, more so than Henry VII.
If Richard had done away with the Princes from fear of their right to the throne, why would he have not done away with Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, the son of George, Duke of Clarence? Yes he was barred from the throne by Edward IV but it easily could have been overturned and Richard did at one point make Edward his heir after the death of his own son. Edward had a better claim than Richard as his older brother's son but it was Tudor that locked Warwick in the Tower and had him executed.
What about Henry VIIs mother Margaret? She was a big influence, I don't think she's innocent here either.
Melanie Riebe She was certainly involved in unseating Richard. Richard should have taken care of her after the Buckingham rebellion rather than rendering her into the safekeeping of her husband.
Especially since Lord Stanley and his brother had a turncoat reputation and also both were very ambitious too with ties to who could and couldn't access the Tower where they were held.
I think she as well as Henry VII were behind the deaths of these kids... I also believe Elizabeth Woodville spirited Prince Richard away & replaced him with another boy... I believe Perkin Warbeck was really Prince Richard/King Richard IV.... Henry Tudor was not the rightful king & he should never have been crowned as he was a usurper & just a Tudor commoner...
interesting comments , certainly
Thank you sir. Do you know that I nearly came top of my class in grade 7 ( a very long time ago). I made made my teacher and my mother very upset because I refused to write in a question “who killed the princes in the tower?’ I wouldn’t write the answer they wanted - I was 11 years old and I didn’t think he had. It went against his whole life of dedication to his brother. I’ve always thought that Margaret Beaufort was the person who,had the most reason. She was almost insanely dedicated to her son ( perhaps with reason. She had not had an easy life and he was all,she had). Richard and the children stood between her son and the throne. Everything was written after Henry had taken the throne. People aren’t flimflam to write anything else are they? Thank sir for a very good, unbiased video. 2020 Australia 🇦🇺
Public opinion does not, necessarily equal what actually happened. Brave girl.
I enjoyed the 1984 Trial of Richard III that you can find on youtube--there have been several American equivalents where our notable lawyers and judges have tried the case and consistently fail to find Richard III guilty
Rebirth of the West had never heard of this. Thanks I will check it out.
Tyrell positively flourished under Henry VII which is odd considering he was so close to Richard. Also it is rather coincidental that he received not one pardon but two.
In which case why was James Tyrell given two mysterious pardons by Henry VII in the summer of 1486?
Very interesting. One point left me open to debate...but on you're delivery in this video I have to commend you. You are very good at rhetoric and keep the watcher engaged in a subject you're clearly knowledgeable and passionate about. Very much enjoyable viewing :)
Why are so many people unable to discuss any issue without being rude and insulting? Richard and the Tudors have been dead for a very long time. I do not understand the fury of the attacks here. It takes all the fun out of studying history.
+Nancy Benefiel 1. no one knows what really happened to the princes and people can't resist a good mystery 2. richard the 3rd was recently found under a carpark and reburied in a cathedral so he is no longer just a character in a line of script to modern brits.
I often wonder that myself, Nancy. People who need to swear and insult start at a point so low that I cannot even find a starting point to discussion. It is sad that it is such a knee-jerk response from so many.
Well said. I love a good debate, sharing information, gathering new, it's what history is all about. It's supposed to challenge our views into the past and allow new information, theories and ideas to be examined. Without challenging what we know now we would never learn anything else. I love looking through others theories even though I have my own, but the main point is the only ones who know the truth can never tell it and all we can do is keep the mystery alive until one day it is perhaps solved, unlikely but not impossible. Curious minds can do extraordinary things if people quit fighting and learn new things to challenge themselves with. I've always loved history.
Welcome to the New Century. You can build a time machine & go back if you want. Why do people think the internet is a safe space? And I'm a liberal.
Margaret Beaufort... i reckon she played a part!!!
Really great content Mark and so well presented. I'm hoping you can get some success & following on here, and then be able to produce/direct some bigger budget documentries! :)
OK I get the desire to defend Richard but there are endless problems:
- Why did Richard not show the boys off when the rumours began and undermined his position? Why did the princes not reappear on Richard's death? After all his followers were still in control of the Tower since Bosworth was in the Midlands. Why did his followers, as Yorkists, not transfer their loyalty to Edward and form a core against Tudor?
- The whole claim of Edward IV's childrens's illegitimacy was indeed agreed by parliament BUT parliament in 1483 was a subservient institution that generally passed whatever it was asked to. The fact that Richard felt the need to gain an Act of Parliament says much, i.e. that the claim was utterly dubious and he needed all the support he could get. The basis may have been legally souond but in the terms of the day that was no good reason at all to depose Edward V. It was massively contentious and dubious. Edward IV himself was of dubious parentage. The Act was a coup by Richard III, pure and simple.
- Richard's motives for seizing the throne are uncertain. It might have been power, pure and simple but it is likely tied up with rivalry with the Woodvilles and a desire to protect himself by removing their influence.
- I imagine that few at the time were 'fooled' by Richard's claims. Even if they accepted the veracity of them the reasoning, that he was already engaged so the marriage was illegal was a minor technicality. Richard's supporters portray him as reluctantly forced to assume the crown when he was shown the evidence of his nephew's illegitimacy. The reasoning was spurious and clearly an excuse for a naked coup.
- Why, if the boys were illegitimate, would he give them the honour of a royal residence? His claim rested on their illegitimacy and paying them honour simply undermines his own position. Why also were there persistent rumours that he wanted to marry his equally illegitimate neice? The whole illegitimacy thing was basically spurious, an excuse.
- The Woodvilles had built up a power base right across England and had many supporters who could be dangerous. The princes were obviously the focus of their loyalty and were a threat to Richard. Assuming that the Act of Parliament convinced everyone and the boys were shrugged off as illegitimate and ignored is naive and ridiculous. If Henry Tudor could put forward a claim to the throne than those of Edward and Richard were rock solid. I imagine that all but Richard's blindest followers (most of whom were in the North) were unconvinced. He had power and the ability to deal with his opponents but this could easily change.
- Why did Elizabeth Woodville fear Richard so much? Why hide from him in holy ground and seek sanctuary? She obviously feared him and with his coup this looks to have been a sound strategy. Why did she emerge? Possibly because she knew her sons were dead and there was nothing else to struggle over, Richard had won and she would cut her losses.
- Why then did she side with Tudor, whose claim was paper thin and whose chances looked weak at best? Why support, as it seems she did, his invasion? Why allow her daughter to marry him and not spirit her abroad to form the nucleus of an opposition as had been done so often at that time? The only logical answer is that she knew her sons were dead and Tudor offered her family a chance of revenge and then, in the person, of Elizabeth of York, the opportunity to be the ancestors of a dynasty.
- Why when Tudor invaded did Richard have so much trouble composing an army capable of defeating what was, in effect, a small and pretty weak invasion force? His defeat at Bosworth when the odds should have been hugely in his favour shows a king who had little support and could not count on many of the grandees such as the Stanleys to assist him. Why did Stanley not back him? What was it that made people reluctant to support him and ultimately led to it being impossible for him to put together a decent and effective army?
The logical viewpoint is:
- Richard's claim to the throne was exceptionally dubious, enforced purely by his sword arm. Nobody was convinced but he had the whip hand and the support of all those who opposed the Woodvilles.
- The princes were extremely dangerous to Richard, whose power base was in the north and for whom the south was potentially hostile. While young they were not far from majority and could then form a nucleus of support centred on their powerful Woodville relatives.
- The boys unarguably disappeared during Richard's reign and not afterwards. This is no coincidence. They were a danger to him.
- With Elizabeth Woodville intriguing against him and clearly opposing him the logical step was to remove the focus of any dissent, the princes. Any adverse events might easily turn enough against Richard to launch a revolt. Edward IV had been popular and whilst the Woodvilles were not, there would have been much disquiet over the treatment of the boys.
- The Tower of London was no accident. While it was a residence, it was not normally used as such and to claim that it was is a stretch. It was primarily a fortress and prison. Placing them there was obviouosly to keep them under tight control and prevent any rescue bids. After all if they were illegitimate then paying them such honour was odd and they should have simply been pensioned off to an estate somewhere. Keeping them under tight control right in the royal centre was no accident, nor a normal residence. There were palaces far more adequate to the princes. The Tower, although a residence was also a place of execution and torture. Residents could not escape the beheading of traitors on Tower Hill, why put two harmless and impressionable boys there? Royal children were usually raised in country estates by wards not kept in the main fotress in London. For example, Queen Elizabeth only lived there while under suspicion of treason and was transferred to comfortable quarters there but undoubtedly under supervision.
- Richard needed to be rid of the princes, it is vanishingly unlikely that they would have been somehow kept secret right through the later months of his reign and into the early part of Henry VII's, even if they were just released in the chaos of the aftermath of Bosworth. Henry VII could far more easily have deposed Edward V on the grounds that his entire line were usurpers from Edward IV and had no legitimacy. He could have had an Act of Parliament passed to state this. That was a far more powerful argument than Richard's dodgy illegitimacy claims. Edward IV was a usurper, certainly a strong case could be made. But he had Richard's Act revoked, in order to legitimise Elizabeth of York so he could marry her. He could have left this on the statute books and married another, but he saw the importance of the Woodville-York family and must have seen the chance of support for them, just as Richard must have and fooled nobody with his Act of Parliament.
Yeah but there was still other suspects at the time that needed the princes dead as well.
we seem to think that Kings had complete control.. The Men of the Privy Council were the ones to look at in suspicion and if he had already become King would have been too busy to look after his nephews, their care would have been in the hands of others with who knows what fealties... i think it will forever remain a mystery but my heart tells me Margaret Beaufort and her husband had a big part to play in their demise!
elleanarchy Yes, parliament and the privy council especially in tge the middle ages were in complete control and it was them that made Richard king when his nephews were declared illegitimate. Richard didn't dare to kill the princes in mh opinion and I agree with you.
Wendy Hull My understanding is that Parliament existed merely to sign the king's laws. Why else would they approve Richard's Titulus Regius to invalidate Edward's marriage when they had no jurisdiction to invalidate marriages. The reason: the members were told to bring a "small company." Richard and Buckingham had I believe 5,000 men in town. In short they were afraid of him.
If the privy council was so all powerful, how did it happen that Lord Hastings, privy council member, was dragged out of a privy council meeting and beheaded on the spot? Granted the privy members refused permission to execute Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey, et al. So Richard just had them executed after a "trial." Oh, Richard dared all right. He wanted that throne and he was going to get it. Killing to boys was easy after all he'd been thru.
Ok lets look at the psychology of this, a man is loyal to his brother for 30 years shows no sign of treachery or dis loyalty suddenly turns into a cold, calculating killer over night. Richard doesn't come across as an impulsive person yet he drags Hastings out a meeting for no reason when Hastings as openly had his back from the beginning that's not someone who's plotting behind the scenes who's coming across as a manipulator that show's anger and rage at someone who he though he could trust who he's found out betrayed him.
The Woodvilles didn't want Richard to be protector when Elizabeth Woodville heard Richard was heading to London she packs her belongings, takes money from the treasury and heads to sanctuary. This makes no sense unless it was because she was going against her husbands wishes and was trying to ensure Richard wouldn't have had any input and wanted to control Edward V herself.
If he really wanted to kill the children, which even in medieval times wasn't looked greatly on, he went about it the wrong way, this cold blooded killer could have easily announced they had died from natural causes and ensure no up risings were done in their names, but he doesn't. And what reason would there be to kill these boys at this point? Who would start a rebellion ? There was no one left. Plus he leaves Georges son very much alive even though he was later executed on a trumped up charge under Tudor.
I'm guessing they approved because they all knew Edward's reputation with women, having an eye witness come forward to tell his version of what happened, which may not mean much to you but it did to them, and also that suspicion and wonder had probably surrounded Gerorge Duke of Clarence's death. George had been a thorn in Edward's side for years plotting and fighting against him yet chroniclers suggest George started spouting off about Edwards illegitimacy and that of his children and finally he deals with him then to shut him up, what was he afraid of?.
Richard held one parliament and changed laws for the GOOD of the people, he was known to be chivalrous in campains and York city was devastated beyond belief when he died at Bosworth they certainly weren't afraid of him. I'm not saying he wasn't ruthless when the need arose he was, after all, a man of his times but a cold bloodless killer and manipulator I think not.
Why did you quit making videos I quite enjoy your videos sir
Where can I get a copy of that book that he was reading from?
RIII didn't murder the Princes. Nobody knows where they went though. But why would Richard shoot himself in the foot. Having the princes killed would have brought great trouble for Richard. And Richard was very intelligent. No. Either he moved them to an unknown remote location. Under very strict guard by some of his most trusted people. Or someone else killed them. To discredit Richard & cause a rebellion against him that would topple him. If you were Richard. What would you do? Exactly. You don't want ANY blood from those princes on your hands. So you pull out all the stops to contain them. Where they can live in luxury. But under strict guard.
Richie Y-W
Sorry, but it's no good them being alive so you "don't have blood on your hands" unless it is very clear for all to see that they ARE ALIVE! Not only did no one ever see them again after a certain point, but he didn't even bother trotting out a couple of ringers for the people to see at a distance. He knew the populace was muttering about their disappearance --- yet he did nothing to rebut the rumours. Guilty conscience, to me.
This has always been one of my favorite stories to tell people. Thanks for explains it.
I believe Margaret killed them....she would do anything to ensure henry was made king
But did they even die? No funeral... thier mother reconciled with Richard... the bones found they refuse to test
Excellent theory! I strongly believe Richard is not his nephews' killer. I am a volunteer in the Missed Princes project and I hope the truth will come to light very soon.
A proper forensic examination of the alleged bones of the princes in Westminster Abbey would be interesting, perhaps there should be a petition asking for this!
Here’s a burning question: why won’t the Queen allow testing on the princes’ “remains”? Is British government afraid that the bones might not be the princes’? 🤔
💯 agree what are they trying to hide?
Thomas More was not born until 1478, five years before Edward IV died. That means he was but a child when Richard III took the throne. He had no firsthand knowledge of the events. Shakespeare was just a writer, writing propaganda for Henry VII.
The reason why I think that Richard III did not kill Edward V and his brother is Titulus Regius. Edward and Richard would not be a threat to Richard III. I do not think that Richard III would kill his nephews anyway. I reckon that the boys were not killed until after Bosworth. The fact that they were not seen after the summer of 1483 is irrelevant. I think this because Henry VII repealed Titulus Regius and he would have only done so if he knew the boys were dead.
Richard benefitted from it and was fully behind the rumor of the Princes being illegitimate so he gets the nod from me
Only if they were brought out and shown, thus reminding people of them. As long as they were kept within the tower safely then they were not a threat.
I think Henry of Buckingham did it.
Agreed
I think Margaret Beaufort & Henry VII were the orchestration of the deaths of these kids... Heck why else was Henry VII so paranoid during his reign?? I also believe Elizabeth Woodville smuggled her son, Prince Richard out of the country & replaced him with another little boy... I believe Perkin Warbeck was really Prince Richard and thus rightful King of England...
What many people don’t realise is that there is a link between Buckingham and Beaufort and by extension Henry Tudor.
Very informative video. Thank you a lot!
I have learn that Richard III 2nd older brother had a son. This son had a better claim to the thrown than Richard. Yet Richard III never touched him. This Prince was killed by Henry VII.
From the only thing I learned about the bones was that they were not the ages of the two teens. I think the presenter is right, it only makes sense for Tudor to have either killed them or sent them far away out of Britain and with his power he could hush anything up and forever. Tudor was a bad man.
Very interesting: I’ve heard that the Duke of Buckingham or Margaret Beaufort (Henry 7th’s mother) might have had the Princes murdered: so that Buckingham or Henry could take the throne, but that is earlier, before Bosworth
Being a king could be dangerous.
I pretty new to this topic but it seems pretty obvious to me that Henry Tudor had far more reason to off the princes than Richard. For one thing, his marriage to Elizabeth, which solidified his claim to the throne, was only advantageous because her brothers were out of the way? On the other hand, while the boys posed no immediate threat to Richard it's plausible that they could at some point. So in my amateurs mind, you have one potential king to whom the princes are a definite impediment and who later proves himself more then willing to kill to acquire the throne, and then you have a current king to whom the princes pose no actual threat especially given the their illegitimate status. Furthermore, you have conflicting sources with regards to Richards character but Henry was known to be suspicious, paranoid and manipulative his entire life. I appreciate that my understanding is basic but to me it seems like a no brainer?
In the first place it was no reason whatsoever for Elizabeth to be married to Tudor if the princes were still alive. Not to mention that logically, the princes were the same level of threat to any occipant of the throne, be it Richard or Henry.
***** Well Elizabeth had to mary Tudor regardless. It was an arranged marriage.
Wendy Hull Not if the princes were alive. The only way for them to be alive is if Edward V ascended the throne in an orderly manner. Richard would peacefully become Edward's Lord Protector. The subject of a marriage between Elizabeth and Tudor would not have come up. She would have been married off to a foreign royal.
I don't know what Margaret would have done. If she kept pushing for her son to be ruler of England, she or Henry would have had to kill both the king and the prince. And they would not be been together conveniently in the tower like sitting ducks. Or maybe she would go back to merely wanting Henry's old title and land given back to him and give up the whole king idea.
Charli30902 You've got a very good grasp of the situation. Others will disagree but at that point in time, Richard had far more motive for offing the boys than Henry. Richard wants the throne NOW. He's had them bastardized but that's really not enough. You cannot leave deposed kings alive even if they aren't legitimate. It's easy to take away legitimacy but its equally easy to reverse it.
Look at Englands history of deposed kiing. It's not good. Except for one who abdicated/deposed (Jamees II) they were deposed and murdered. You cannot leave a former ruler/prince in line for the throne alive to cause future trouble.
Perfect example if Edward IV who deposed Henry VI. One of his former loyalists and one of Edward's brothers(!) deposed Edward. They took Henry out of the Tower and set him on the throne again. Edward regained his throne but learned his lesson. He had Henry murdered, killed his son in battle and took back his throne. Henry wouldn't have wanted the throne back but other people will use people like Henry (not all there) to rule through.
The problem with Henry Tudor at the time when the princes disappeared and presumed dead is that Henry was in France. He also had no money to hire assassins.
The other problem was access to the tower. His assassins would have needed a warrant signed by Richard himself to get in. I don't think Henry's men would have gotten permission. Now if the princes had still been alive when Henry invaded after Bosworth, no question he would have murdered them. And found a way to display them as being dead to avert pretenders.
If you were Richard, you'd be in a bind. People could see them, wonder what was going on. He most likely knew he had to make his move. One of the interesting things he did before the boys disappeared was dismiss all of their servants. The illegitimacy thing was a weak reed to lean on. People wanting to use one or both of them would use them as figureheads in uprisings.
So if More's account is so detailed... no one else reported this accounting? Did More' ever say who told him all this?.. where he got this information? His bread was buttered by Tudor's favor. Confession under torture paints a Tudor favored story.
My problem with this view is that many monarchs, around the world, when stolen or conquered by a rival king, they would kill all parts of the family so that they wouldn't have any threats later in the rule. You know, so "Hamlet" doesn't happen.
your opinion i would like to here about please mark goacher? about Tony Robinsons' documentary on Queen Elizabeth II - NOT the rightful heir to the Throne of England
The presenter contradicts himself. Early in the video he makes the oft repeated case that Richard had “nothing to fear” from his nephews (actually, of a party forming around them) once they were declared illegitimate. Later in the video, he states that Richard kept them incommunicado in the tower for fear of supporters trying to free and restore them. Which is it? Of course, the legitimacy question could have easily been reversed if Edward’s V's party came to power. The parliament was a rubber stamp for the king at that point in English history. Henry VII’s line of descent from John of Gaunt had been first judged illegitimate and then later legitimized. Even then, they were attained from ever sitting on the throne. Obviously, he did.
If Henry VII had had them murdered, then how exactly did Thomas More know where they were buried? Who ever accused Henry prior to More's time? Where would have More gotten such information? The Church of England and the queen refuses to allow DNA testing on the skeletal remains of the two children buried in the tower under the staircase. I have no doubt that if such was done now, in light of the DNA testing on Richard’s remains, that it would be proof positive that they were his close relatives, his nephews. Besides, what other two kids could have possibly been buried there like that? Who? Why? Dental evidence could well determine their ages which would lay to rest all doubt in my opinion.
Finally, from all accounts, Henry and his wife had a wonderfully (and surprisingly, considering that it was the most political of marriages!) harmonious marriage and seemed to genuinely love each other. Henry was always a pious man at heart and had been as merciful as the times and circumstances permitted him to be. (For example, he spared Lambert Simnel, the hapless pretender boy tool of de la Pole.) Whom seems the more likely villain here? A man who spared a ten year old child who claimed his throne or a man who deposed and (at the very least) walled his own child nephews up for his own benefit? Come now, Mr. Goacher. Methinks thou dost protest too much! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
+litwriter100 A pious man? Henry VII kept George Duke of Clarence's son locked in the tower from the age of ten till Henry had him executed on some trump up charge. He also dates his reign from the day before Bosworth battle so that he can accuse all those fighting for their King of treason.
Have you forgotten who More grew up in the household of?
+Hayley James As I wrote, Henry Tudor was as merciful as his times and circumstances permitted him to be. Thus, he spared Simnel. The adage: “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown” could not be more applicable than it was in the times Henry lived.
Edward Plantagenet’s history has always been somewhat murky, his life both under Richard and Henry. For the boy to have survived as long as he did before dying by execution as a young man evidences that he had probably been reasonably well treated in his captivity and not chained away in some dark recess of the tower. Henry had to contend with not just legitimate rivals to the throne, such as the de la Poles, but also the feigned boys. Edward confessed to plotting to escape with Warbeck, probably prefatory to acknowledging Warbeck as his cousin Richard of York, thus adding to the latter’s appearance of validity in his claim. Therefore, Henry had been justified in his actions, I think. Let us not forget that Henry did uphold the boy’s right to the title of Earl of Warwick (by his right from his mother) prior to this time.
As for Henry being a pious man at heart, despite his renown frugalness he did pay out of his own pocket for a proper Christian burial for this Yorkist plotter against his crown and person. By all accounts, he was a remarkably faithful husband to his wife.
Regarding Thomas More, I have not forgotten that he is a canonized saint in my religion and a martyr to it; a man of unquestioned principles and integrity.
@@harrygallagher4125 Thomas More was a bigot who considered it acceptable to have people tortured and burned alive because of a difference in religion. So much for his principles and integrity. He should be burning in hell, if there is such a place.
Very interesting that the Queen won’t allow them to be DNA tested the question is why what does she know that we don’t and what is it that she is keen to cover up. If the Queen won’t allow the truth to be uncovered then it must be bad
- I mean worse case scenario it means they’re not the princes at all.
The fact that the Queen and CofE are refusing to allow DNA testing of the skeletons is a huge red flag 🚩- very loud alarm bells ringing in my head.
Brilliant. Don't forget Elizabeth of York had to be legitimate for Henry T to marry her so her brothers must be legit also. Good reason to kill. Buckingham also involved and Richard didn't need to kill the Princes. Sir James Tyrell and T of L summed it up beautifully. But why do you have a Red Dragon next to your name. That's Tudor!
I know right. Dragons are cool, its just those damn Tudors who were terrible.
Wendy Hull
***** Hi
Maybe Elizabeth of York did it! She's got motive! She wants to be queen, right? :)
When the princes were locked out in the tower Elizabeth of York was a teenager with zero political power her mother was the one who drive her and I doubt she wanted to kill her brothers, her mother, her uncle, margaret and Henry conspired around her persona because they had especific objetives, richard keep his throne and the others put henry on it and she didnt want to be queen, she wanted to marry a man for love then after the death of her brothers became the centre of attention like the bond of union between two houses and it wasn't even certein that Henry would win the battle and she will be queen... if you think elizabeth the teenager did it then why you dont talk about Anne Neville unlike elizabeth, anne was already the queen of england and had a son to proclaim as 'Prince of Wales' instead of the disappeared / dead princes and nobody would question who would be the next succession line, to many people it was dishonest the Princes and Elizabeth being declared illegitimate, there were still enough people who recognized the two Princes and Elizabeth as the true successors because they loved their father and that was a problem for richard and anne that become more hostile after their disappearance.
Even though I do very much enjoy these different and new takes on famous old conspiracies, I think it could only be Richard III. People like to say that everything was Tudor propaganda, and while it is true it was found he had no hunchback, he had a spinal deformity, meaning his back would have been funnily shaped. What else could be true? I definitely do agree he was made out to be much more wicked than he actually was, though he was definitely ambitious. Dominic Mancini, an Italian who visited England during Richard's time, wrote a live account of his reign. From what I recall, be free to correct me; he stated that Richard III was incredibly ambitious, and that people at that time believed Richard III had the princes, 'done away with.'
And the fact it makes perfect sense. The trick is not to over think it and simply put yourself in Richard's shoes. Within three months of his brother's death, not only had he said Edward IV - his own brother - was illegitimate but also his brothers sons, (creating the 'Titulus Regius.') He did this because, like Mancini states - he was ambitious. It's obvious! Nobody would slander their own family members unless they were very needy for a crown. Richard III was quite desperate to have the princes under his watch and control, why? And why did they just vanish after the coronation? Surely someone, somewhere would have seen them - Mancini was not the only one writing at the time. He even wrote about Edward V being comforted after finding out he would not be King, but in fact his uncle - showing that these writers at the time had a lot of sources and information available to them, and even Mancini was baffled on what had happened to them. I know people are creating 'ifs' and 'buts' but honestly, none make any sense. Why would he send them away? Keeping the princes alive, anywhere, would cause serious threat to his reign. With them disposed off, who would his enemies point to instead of him? There would be no way to call him a usurper. The Henry Tudor idea is ridiculous too. No way would the princes have been missing for 2-3 years, not without a single sighting by anyone.
My final point are the skeletons under the staircase. I find it quite hard to understand anyone who doesn't think it's that of the two princes. Think about it logically, the skeletons of two boys, who went missing some two hundred years before being found, who fit the age of Edward and Richard - went completely missing and no one knew what happened to them. Further evidence shows that their cousin was also found (in around 1960 I think?) and it showed they were related to those skeletons believed to be the princes in the tower, by dental evidence.
My conclusion, two boys - who were seen as a threat to a rather ambitious man, did the hard decision of 'putting them away,' which is why he nor anybody else ever mentioned them or attempted to show/talk about them publicly. Hid them under the stairs so nobody would see them carrying off the bodies, and alas! his reign is secured. Which, funnily enough, is the most accepted theory!
So do u believe that Richard III killed killed them?
+Charlotte Manasco of course. While it'll never be proven, I think it's pretty safe to say he did.
+Laura Plantagenet I still think that myself. It's been years (since I was in high school actually) since I read this and people say that he didn't do it. But it doesn't make any sense why he would kill his beautiful and loving nephews. They were just young children and didn't do a damn thing 2 him. They had their lives taken away be4 they even had a real chance 2 live and experience life. Poor babies. Have u heard of the anime Black Butler? They actually talk about them in there. Wanna see the episode?
The problem with Mancini was he never met with anyone in Richard’s circle and a lot was gossip that he had picked up so when quoting Mancini it’s good to try and find another source to back it up. Also he wasn’t in the country very long and much of what he wrote he did so after leaving England. And when you say Richard was desperate to have the boys under his watch they were in the tower, a royal residence at that time, it was normal for that to happen. Mancini writes about the princes yet never spoke directly with anyone in Richards circle, and since you say Richard kept them under his watch I doubt many people would have had access to them, if we are to look at it that way.
You also have to remember the boys weren’t the only possible heirs to the throne, George Duke of Clarence’s son was also around at this time but yet Richard didn't feel threatened by him yet he too could have been used as rallying point. Once Henry took the throne he was kept locked up in the tower from the age of ten till he was executed on stupid charges but Henry had a habit of killing Yorkist's.
There have been many sets of skeletons found in the tower over the years, some have which have been claimed to be the princes in the tower. The only reason why people thought they might be their bones is because More wrote about it. And who did More grow up in the household of? Moreton, a staunch Lancastrian supporter who was in with the Tudors! So if Moreton knew where the bones were why did he not tell the new King? Henry had done everything in his power to discredit Richard where he could yet failed to even mention the princes, even once! Not until the so called Tyrell confession which was most certainly fake. I’m not saying Henry did but I believe he knew exactly what happened to those boys. Hence why he destroyed so many documents at that time.
Wasn't Beaufort's husband Constable of England. He had access.
Let’s not forget, there was also a persistent rumour that Edward the fourth was not actually the son of Richard of York as it was said that Cecily Neville had had an affair of which Edward was the product. That could easily have been advocated by Richard invalidating Edward the fifth’s claim to the throne.
If Titulus Regius was based on such, "flimsy evidence", then why did Henry VII suppress it and order every copy destroyed? Why also did Henry repeal it without having it read out first, a major breach of protocol? Henry clearly considered its contents convincing. Also the criticism of Edward IV was probably bunged in later after Buckingham's rebellion (Rosemary Horrox argues) in order to emphasise the lack of virtue of the rebels.
Very interesting view and perspective on it
He sure was a bad man. Firstly, he tried to backdate his reign to the time before Richard was king. He had to abandon that idea due to public outcry. He could be very devious in achieving his goals, (like his son) and apparently wasn't very nice to his wife. I don't think much of his mother either.
Couldn't the princes have just ran away, possibly abroad as they saw there lives better off not being royal. Seeing as their father had been partly destroyed physically and mentally by being king. Edward V had been supposedly quite ill so may have died after running away. Whilst Richard (Pervin Warbeck) must have returned a few years later as he may have missed being Royal.
Richard (Pervin Warbeck) must have run away to Flanders and possibly changed his name to Pervin Warbeck. He must have learned Flemish and moved to Tournai, Tournaisis (where 'Perkin' claimed he was born in his 'confession') he would only have known of this place if he'd been there himself. Perkin Warbeck and Richard of Shrewsbury must have been his duel personalities. He must have been adopted by the man and women 'Perkin' said were his parents and he must have become the apprentice of a Breton merchant. His arrival to Ireland must have reminded him of the desperate situation in England. When he met many York supporters in Ireland he must have known deep down in his heart that he had to be Richard of Shrewsbury again and make things right
I actually had the a very similar theory myself. Though I wondered if they were killed before the Battle of Bosworth by traitors within Richard III's own household. After all, he was betrayed at the battle, which shows conspiracy was already at work. I believed gold of the enemy already penetrated the walls of the fortress. The Princes were found at the foot of the stairs in a chest, which as you pointed out, Tyrrell confessed to under torture. If they were killed before the battle of Bosworth, Richard III would have to keep it quiet anyway or people would think he did it. But I think your version makes more sense.
Makes sense to me. I think you should look into that rising damp.
I still think it likely that Richard removed the boys to Burgundy. I think that Edward may well have died on the journey or shortly after. and I think that Richard may well have reappeared and called Perkin Warbeck.
I think that's possible as well. It would be more reasonable to let them go to Burgundy than just kill them. I feel that some people can exaggerate things like this by saying he killed his own nephews who were still children. I know it was a different time and it was normal to kill family members (unfortunately), Richard in my opinion would never had the heart to kill those boys.
Wendy Hull IMHO, Richard had no need to kill either boy. Parliament had already made him king. Why kill the boys and not the girls? The war between Matilda (Maud) and Stephen showed that the idea of a woman being queen in her own right was not unthinkable. The strongest argument against Richard being the murderer (if murderer there was) is that the rest of the heirs survived quite nicely throughout the rest of Richard's brief lifetime.
Nancy Benefiel That's true. Many people think Richard would be the murderer because he had access to the tower and had the "motives". They also say that Richard hated his nephews because in his eyes, they were Woodvilles. I don't see how Richard would hate his nephews and murder them because of this. But I agree with you, Richard would've most likely kill off the other heirs, legitimate or not. He also could've killed Henry Tudor since he had been a powerful threat to the throne by 1483.
Wendy Hull Richard was on his very public progress at the point that it is claimed the boys were killed. There were records of expenditures for them postdating this period. One of the most interesting is harness for a horse. Obviously the boys were not going to be doing much riding within the walls of the Tower of London.
Nancy Benefiel Now you're finally right about something. Richard was in progress at the time of the princes disappearance.
I think it was Henry's mother...
Yes, it’s a very well crafted theory, but I’m still not convinced. Richard III appears as an innocent victim (as white as snow), allow me to doubt it.
He isnt as white as snow he was a man of his times but it makes no sense for him to have murdered those boys
I'm related to King Richard III. Thanks for trying to clear my kin's name! :D
Richard was only next in line to the throne because the Princes had no claim to it, being illegitimate.There is also the issue of Edward IV's alleged bastardy for which there is evidence. Richard had a sound claim without needing to resort to killing the boys. Richard was a pious man, in that day and age to kill a child was a heinous sin.
Anyone think that either Buckingham or Hastings could have had something to do with the deaths of the princes? Both had their eye on the throne. The manner of Hastings's execution suggests he might have done something quite awful.
Richard's actions weighting him with guilt and Tyrell's confession finds Richard guilty unless another evidence finds him innocent!
1) Richard sides with Edward's IV enemy and exiled Duke of Buckingham.
Why he wants to do that if you have the best intentions for the princes? Richard simply wants allies in usurping of the crown and Buckingham had an army in case of need.
2) The interception of Prince Edward V and the imprisonment of Earl Rivers in Northampton along the disobedience of Richard when the Prince asked to release his uncle.
There is no proof of a coup of woodvilles against Richard. Earl Rivers was simply accompanying the Prince to London for his coronation and Richard ''wanted the same thing''. However, Richard simply finds excuses and cut off the Prince's support (Rivers) because he NEVER wanted in reality this coronation and it can only be undone when prince is neutralised from support and power.
3) The execution of Hastings. Although Hastings did not have good relations with Woodvilles he was a faithful supporter of Edward the IV and would see his son becoming a King. Richard simply could not switch Hastings to his side with Buckingham and once again, he has to eliminate Hastings in order to cut off a big support of the Prince.
4) Richard illegitimates his nephews on the word of a Bishop who appears from nowhere but in ''perfect timing''. Why he never appeared before? Suddenly decided to reveal the truth? He simply seek revenge for his imprisonment by Edward IV. Robert Stillington was not ''holly'' at all. He took part later in the plot, in an attempt to put Lambert Simnel on the throne. He was the impostor of Edward V. So why he did that? Perhaps the guilt? Or the Bishop had his own ambitions? Would you really trust the word of this man? His actions telling me ''no, no. no''!
5) If the Ricardians so badly want to believe the word of a Bishop who appeared like a ghost from nowhere then I don't understand why they don't believe the confession of Jamie Tyrell who admitted in the presence of King Henry VII and Queen Elisabeth that he killed the princes under the Richard III instructions. You can't be ''picky'' to believe one thing and not the other.
So here we go, unless you Ricardians find evidence or confession that Richard did not kill the princes, we have Tyrell's confession who admits that Richard was responsible.
Tyrrell's 'confession' was circulated after his execution, there is no way of assessing its validity. It also jars in comparison the the pardons and appointments that Henry Vll had given to Tyrrell earlier. I wonder what they were for? Did Tyrrell carry out the murders on the orders of Henry Vll, and was he later executed to make sure he did not reveal the truth? It's as plausible as any other theory.
You do not see the video? Tyrell was under torture, of course he would say anything
I don't think testing will ever happen, to see about the 2 princes, but, maybe since Richard has been found, it could be a science thing. Would be very interesting to see DNA.
Nice recitation of the summary pages in The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.
I wonder if the theory that Elizabeth Woodville sent a different young boy instead of her youngest son is true
There have been claims over the years back then. But I'm not sure of any recent claims of being descendents. It would be really interesting to see if there are any modern day claimants. If so and they do DNA testing they could at least weed out those who aren't descendents. Im rather surprised that I haven't heard of any modern day claimants to say they are descendents of any of Edward IV illegitimate children or even Henry VIII. Although aren't the current English Monarchy supposed to be descendents of Mary Boleyn by Henry VIII?
in my opinion, the theory that she sebt an imposter to the tower to save her child is very plausible. its safe to say, by the time they came for her other son she knew what they wanted him for. but how would someone know if they are a descendant of any monarch? I imagine to find out you would need to be interested in your family tree and be able to go that far back, and not everyone has the patience. I might even be a descendant of one monarchs illegitimate offspring...god only knows how many of those were conceived over history.
fascinating!!
jeni jones I think you may be right with that theory.
Perkin Warbeck, google him...Perkin Warbeck (c. 1474 - 23 November 1499) was a pretender to the English throne during the reign of King Henry VII of England.
By claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, the younger son of King Edward IV, one of the "Princes in the Tower", Warbeck was a significant threat to the newly established Tudor dynasty, and gained support outside England.
Jeni Jones Okay, say Elizabeth Woodville wanted to find a boy (IN SANCTURY) who's the right age (approximately), height, rich clothes in his size, looks like Richard, talks like him or at least doesn't have a working class accent. And oh, yes, no one at the tower would recognize him as a ringer.
How would she find IN SANCTUARY a bastard of Edward IV. I don't imagine she kept them on tap. When she went into sanctuary it was in a hurry. She barely had time to rob the treasure, get her kids together, get their clothes/her clothes together. She had little time to find one of his by-blows. She couldn't look to Londoners to help her. There was no Edward IV to ride to the rescue and reward those who helped her like the last time.
And who's going to find this bastard of Edward/replacement for her? The Woodville men would have scattered to the four winds. If Richard found them, it would be the block or at best imprisonment. She had few friends by this point, the nobility loathed her and her family, and thought the best place for her sons was with Richard.
The church representative when Buckingham was badgering her about giving her son assured her that he would personally make sure no harm came to him. I don't know if she totally believed him, but there was little she could do at that point. Richard had surrounded the sanctuary with his men and had threatened that he would break sanctuary and god knows what would have happened then. In short, don't think it was likely.
I just wonder why the Queen of England isn’t allowing the testing of the DNA of the princes (if it is them). Also, I don’t think Richard killed them. If they were already declared illegitimate, they posed no threat to Richard’s throne. I think Buckingham did it.
I had read that RIII had slaughtered the Woodville family, the boys mother's family. Why would he do that?
They all were murdering each other for various reasons, doesnt mean he killed the boys!
I believe that Elizabeth Woodville's moves are the key for this plot. Whoever is able to clarify her moves, put them in the right order and maybe add something new will possibly shed light on what really happened.
Main doubts:
If ever, why she was silent when Stillington's version came out? And why Edward IV did not take any precaution knowing that his heirs were at risk? Moreover, why the hell she sent Richard to the Tower together with the elder prince? Suicide move under every point of view.
My feeling is that possibly Richard and Elizabeth have chosen to protect the princes by temporarly removing them from the hotspot, being aware of even more than one conspiracy against the Yorkists. (Margaret Beaufort, and Hastings could have been two different faces of the same coin or even two different attempts to grab the crown). Then after Bosworth it has been relatively easy for the Tudors to wipe them out of history, and put the blame on Richard. Both the Queen and the Lord Protector were very well aware that England could not be ruled by a boy or a weak King, like the Lancastrians proved over the previous decades. Again, the White Queen (or maybe even Elizabeth of York, as she ran to the Tower with her husband to make sure that the last mouth able to talk was properly shut up) has the answer.
+Mauro Magrassi
Your first statement about Elizabeth Woodville is very true. Elizabeth Woodville's moves are crucial to understanding what happens in the months after her husband's death. New information could shed light on many things. Her thoughts on Stillington have not been recorded but many believe that Edward IV executed his own brother, the Duke of Clarence, because he made similar charges about Edward IV being pre-contracted to marry another woman and he may have even been given the information by Stillington.
Elizabeth Woodville did not want to hand over her younger son to Richard III. She took him into sanctuary with her. It is believed she really had no choice but to hand him over. If Elizabeth Woodville actually made the decision to declare her son's illegitimate then why was she in sanctuary?
This idea that a child king was such a problem is not a genuine concern. The reality is that King Henry VI had no problem when he was a child king. He had regents and advisers. He made it to adulthood without a problem. He was much beloved by everyone around him and they all agreed he was the rightful king. His later problems as an adult had nothing to do with him being a child king. So the Lancastrians did not prove anything. In fact they proved the opposite as far as a child king was concerned and there were many successful child kings. Edward III, Henry III and Louis IX in France. The general idea of a child king is not what motivates Richard III. It is a child king with Elizabeth Woodville as its mother.
+El Grande Gringo Fantastico You went too far, of course the game had to been far more subtle and complex. The Woodville young king found too many enemies at the same time on both sides so he was backfired before Bosworth. How precisely they did, or in other words how they forced the White Queen to leave both guys go to the Tower would be great to discover.
El, the tower was also a royal residence and it's likely if the princes lived, then they would've been kept in the tower to be kept hidden. It's not all that complicated.
+Wendy Hull I do not think Elizabeth Woodville wanted to give her son up to King Richard III. Why else go into sanctuary? She wanted protection and thought she could hide him in the abbey. There is no other reason for her to go into sanctuary. These are obvious motives here. A former queen of England does not go into sanctuary and leave her royal residence for fun. She did it because she was truly frightened and she would not give up her younger son unless she believed she had no real choice and that in doing so she may be able to save the lives of her other two sons who were imprisoned by King Richard III..... AND that is what they were. IMPRISONED. King Richard III beheaded her younger son from her first marriage, Richard Grey, and as El pointed out, maybe she thought that by showing good will to Richard he would release her brother and her son.
Again her motives are obvious.
Mauro Magrassi she herself wanted to rule over her son, thus she had motive.
makes perfect sense to me
One correction and a few additional items to fill out the story. First, the correction: The law, Titulus Regius, wasn't passed until 1484, a half year after Richard had been crowned. Richard ascended based on a petition, which might have been signed by many of the members of Parliament, but it was not a law that allowed Richard to ascend to the throne.
Titulus Regius was based on two cannon laws. One addressed the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler, and the other addressed the improper wedding between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. It was held in a private, unconsecrated chapel, and the banns had not been read publicly, as required. This was known all across Europe. There was no defense of Edward V's legitimacy once this issue was raised. Titulus Regius primarily focused on the lechery of Edward IV, probably as a way to stir the emotions of the people against Edward IV and the legitimacy of his heirs, but the factual issue of the unlawful wedding was also spelled out in that document. That alone was enough to disinherit Edward V, and it was undeniably true. The banns had not been read as required.
Something else to consider is that Thomas More never published his history. It can hardly be dismissed outright as More's work of Tudor propaganda if he never made it public, assuming he was the actual author. Might it have been altered by those who published it several years after his death? Those versions differ from each other. History has been unfair to Richard III, but I think has also been unfair to Thomas More. Like Richard, More was a virtuous and pious man of very high integrity. Why would he knowingly spread such lies about Richard? The fact is that he didn't. He kept this history to himself. Markham (1906) suggested that Morton had written the history (and he's not the only one who thinks so), and that More was either copying it for himself or translating it from Latin. A copy of the history was found among More's papers when he died, and it was in More's handwriting. This is the only evidence that he was the author. There are several versions in English and in Latin. There is no evidence which is the original history or which version has provenance. It seems an unfinished work, but Markham points out that the history ends when Morton left England. Morton was an enemy to Richard. He was a Tudor loyalist from the beginning. Richard had imprisoned him for his role in the same plot for which he had Hastings beheaded. This makes far more sense to me than More writing such a slanderous pack of lies when in every other way he was such an honest man with unimpeachable integrity.
I've always thought More was just transcribing Morton's work, became disgusted with the obvious impossibilities of it, and quit. Secretly killing two children who were no threat to him was simply not in Richard's nature. Richard lived his entire life by his motto "loyalty binds me". That his name became anathema after his death is such a tragedy.
Nancy Benefiel
While I don't think Richard III was the villain often portrayed, I am sceptical as to how far his motto may explain his character. Richard was unfailingly loyal to his brother - until his brother died. Then, he lost no time believing the first rumour (i.e., the marriage contract to Eleanor Butler, to which there was only one single self-professed witness, a witness known to be no friend to the queen), separating his brother's children from their family and keeping them out of sight of anyone but a few people he chose, breaking the oath he had taken to protect his brother's son's interestes and see him become a reigning king one day. And then he put the crown on his own head. This way of proceeding wouldn't have counted as very loyal even if Richard did not kill the boys (of which crime, indeed, he may be entirely innocent).
uclmu2008
I think Richard supported Edward V as long as he could feasibly do so. Everybody could plainly see that the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodeville was improper. As the Titulus Regius pointed out (and was publicly known in 1483 and earlier), the marriage was held on unconsecrated ground, and there was no public reading of the banns. As long as no one objected to that publicly, everything was fine, but when it became a public issue, I think there was no way Richard could retain credibility while supporting his nephew, who was now a known bastard. He was the only unquestionably legitimate heir remaining among Richard of York and Cecily's descendants. Edward's kids were bastards, and Clarence's kids carried his attainder. The next male heir is Richard. If not Richard, then there would be chaos determining which of their Lancastrian enemies would claim the throne, Buckingham or Henry Tudor. That's kinda what happened in the end anyway. Edward IV won the War of the Roses (or so it seemed at the time). Out of loyalty to Edward IV, Richard did what he could do keep the throne in Yorkist hands and not reverse his brother's victory. Again, kinda what happened anyway.Richard lost the penultimate (though ultimately decisive) battle in the War of the Roses.
Richard III showed his loyalty to Edward V by stepping up as the only unquestionably viable Yorkist heir when the boy's cause was lost. He kept the boy's family in power. That's my unlikely hypothesis.
(All hypotheses are unlikely when trying to answer the question of how Richard came to power and the fate of the two princes. Something very unlikely happened though.)
uclmu2008 Bishop Stillington had no reason to make up a story about a pre contract if it wasn't true. The hole in the corner wedding between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville was always suspicious, accompanied by stories of drugs and witchcraft. If the marriage was invalid, Richard was obligated to prevent illegitimate offspring from taking the crown. Richard did not separate the boys from their mother. Elizabeth chose to take herself (and a hefty chunk of the treasury) into sanctuary. It was the norm for the monarch to inhabit the Tower apartments in the days leading up to his coronation. There was nothing unusual about Edward staying in the royal apartments, nor of Richard joining him to keep him company
Nancy Benefiel Why did Elizabeth need to use the treasury?
For my article on the anniversary of Richard III's ascension to the throne and some of the misconceptions of his reign, including the murder of the princes in the tower, please click: www.crackedhistory.com/june-26-1483-richard-plantagenet-duke-gloucester-proclaims-king-richard-iii-england/
Richard put them in the Tower. That makes him responsbie for their deaths, regardless. I have always believed whatever happened, happened on Richard's watch, so to speak.
Actually Elizabeth Woodville sent the youngest boy there for protection.. However there were rumours she replaced Richard with a peasant lookalike...
elleanarchy There are conflicting accounts as to how the younger boy came to the Tower, and they range from Elizabeth sending him freely, for his protection, to Elizabeth being forced to give him up with the threat that otherwise he'd be taken out of sanctuary by force, since he was but a child to whom the concept of sanctuary did not apply. There are a number of more nuanced theories between these extremes; but it is by no means certain that she sent him willingly, or indeed trustingly, into Richard's care.
All kings at that time went to their coronations from the Tower of London. They were not in prison there, they were in the royal apartments. Richard came to the tower to be a companion to his brother. His safety was guaranteed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I doubt the Archbishop would have been silent if something had happened to him. I also doubt that Elizabeth would have written to her elder son urging him to return to England if she thought he was in danger from Richard.
It would be impolitic at best, to cross the man who was crowned king while his nephews were still alive.
kennashan There's no evidence that his nephews were not alive. They had been declared illegitimate by council and parliament. Richard had been crowned king. He had nothing to gain by killing them.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO interesting, I heard the only one at the time with ANYTHING to gain from their deaths was Margaret Beaufort, (which could explain the line of psychopathy passed down the generations to her grandson ;) ) and she was most likely the one who done away with the boys to secure the throne for her son. I like that idea peculiarly! Fact is, there are SO many potential suspects in this. However, I DO think the one with the least to gain was Richard and I don't think their mother would hand them over to someone she didn't trust wholly, we could question her judgement but his being guilty has too many holes and like your man said the only info available was written by propagandists of the Tudor Dynasty so it is a question that will go unanswered for many years to come -OH PLS SOMEONE INVENT A TIME MACHINE!!!!
I've just watched Channel 4 programme with Rob Rinder. They have now evidence that proves that the prince's survived.
Guys a legend.
dude sort that wall out
It is difficult to say because, there was so much politics. Lady Margaret stirred everything. She created the feeling of untrust between Elizabeth and Richard otherwise she whould not seek sanctuary. Anne Neville was working on this as well, how to get rid off the princes and her son to be next heir to the throne. The princes were not killed from either Margaret or Neville. That was a great sin so I believe they Locked them somewhere secretly in the tower where only a few people could acces.
So let me get this straight. It was a royal residence
Henry must have kept it from his wife then. They were supposed to have had a happy marriage. I suspect she wouldn’t have been happy with Henry killing her brothers.
A very good idea, and forensic analysis may be able to ascertain identity, but apparently the Queen will not permit it.
The only person who could ever have profited from the death of the two Woodville princes was Henry Tudor, no other scenario makes any sense at all, there is something about the portrait of Henry Tudor that the artist captured, the artist captures a face with an expression and aura that exudes evil, he has always given me the chills, he had to have had them killed just as he had poor Perkin Warbeck killed, anyone who believes any Tudor propaganda is just darn crazy.
Because the bones are not those of the two boys in question, not even from the same time in history, the bones are most likely the bones of one of Elizabeths or Stuart prisoners because by that time the Tower was a dark place but in Richards time it was more like the palace. The whole thing has been a cover up ever since by every monarch since Henry VII, none of the monarchs since him were legitimate except in the case of might equals right it keeps the myth of lineage to Aelfred The Great alive
I'm sorry. I have a hard time seeing this way. I do believe the Tower was a prison for the princes, not a royal residence . You cannot deny the children were taken by Richard and put in the Tower never to be seen again.
In 1502 we have James Tyrrell confessing to the murders of the two young princes, under Richard's orders. His trial was attended by the king and queen and he was facing charges of treason. Knowing that he was to die, Tyrell made, it is said while in the Tower, a confession of his guilt as to the princes; Dighton, his accomplice, was also examined and confessed. It is the substance of this confession that forms the history of the murder as we know it, though the text has not been preserved.
While I do think Shakespeare did blacken Richard's name, I still feel this issue is a stumbling block to reform his reputation. Law or not, the boys would always be a threat, and liquidating them would be the easiest solution. Alternatively, it's possible some flunkie exceeded their orders and Richard, aghast, said nothing afterward to minimize damage. As for them still being alive leading up to Bosworth, I also find that unlikely. Surely, rumours of the boys disappearance would have been flying over London alienating Yorkists, which were bound to reach Richard's ears. The easiest thing to dispel that would have been to trot them out or at least let them play and be seen.. but Richard didn't do that if they were still alive. Moreover, I'm sure the gossip mongers must have asked servants about who was doing the boys' laundry, feeding them, cutting their hair etc if they were cooped up in the tower in 1484, 1485.. but likely got no satisfactory answer.
As I understand it, the Princes just vanished from the Tower in 1483. Anything could have happened - murder, died of natural causes, moved to another location or spirited out of the Tower. Richard remains the prime suspect for whatever happened as - let's face it - he had motive, method and opportunity. Henry VII had motive, but not opportunity. But it does seem a stupid move for Richard to kill them if he did - he must have known people would guess - even in those times, killing kids was shocking. Once the story started, Richard's name was destroyed so much it led to his downfall, yet he made no denial of the accusation. Why?
Goodiesfanful Henry VII actually could have had opportunity. The Yorkist children were living, most of them, protected in the North of England. Clarence's son, Edward and Richard's illegitimate son John, both wound up in Henry's hands. A notation in Richard's account books records the expenditure for clothing and "harness" for the "Lord bastard". Only Edward and Richard were lords. Neither would have need of a horse in the Tower. If one or both of them was sent to Sutton, they may well have been found there by Henry with the rest of the children. After the repeal of Titulus Regius restored their legitimacy, either boy's claim to the crown would far exceed Richard's. Both John and Edward died at Tudor hands, it's not hard to imagine the princes may have. Henry's motivation was far stronger than Richard's. Richard was the crowned king. Only his death could change that.
Nancy Benefiel The " Lord bastard" was probably King Richard's own son and I am not sure that his demise was at the hands of Tudor. In fact I am not sure that it is known what exactly happened to Richard"s. son.
As for the accusation that Henry Tudor had opportunity after the Battle of Bosworth, well, it is just absurd. Anyone against Tudor would only have to release them and let their identities be known and it would have been war from then on out. If the boys were in the tower they would have been released. No matter where they were, once Richard III was dead they would have been shown in order to stop Tudor from becoming king by his enemies. Think about it.
People were trying to break the two princes out of the Tower. It is my belief that Buckingham told everyone that the two princes were dead and that there was no point in trying to break them out of the Tower. It was in King Richard's interest to not only kill them but to then lie about in order to confuse his enemies. Buckingham seems to know they are dead and everyone thinks they are dead by September of 1483.
Why? There is a reason they are believed to be dead and that people mark August of 1483 as the last time they are ever seen. Buckingham tells everyone they are dead and when people demand to see them the two boys are never brought out. It does not take long to start a rebellion and rightly so.
Kristin Harris Unless the skeletons at Westminster are determined at some point to be those of Edward and Richard we will never know for sure what happened to them. Even if they prove to be the boys they will not tell us who killed them. The entry in Richard's account rolls, well after the disappearance refers to the support of a living individual, the Lord Bastard. Richard's illegitimate son, John was not a lord and was never referred to as such. Edward retained several of his titles after he was declared illegitimate. Following the Battle of Bosworth, Henry acquired the other children in Richard's "nursery", John and Clarence's son Edward. Why would it have been impossible for him to acquire Edward and Richard at the same time? How can you assume they would have been released? The last thing Henry would have allowed was for two Yorkist heirs to live?John and Edward were both executed. If the princes died on Richard's watch, it would have been to his benefit to present the bodies to the public with some excuse of illness to account for their deaths and bury them with all pomp and circumstance, as his brother did with the body of Henry VI We know Edward was seriously ill and attended by a doctor. The worst thing for Richard was the mystery surrounding them. It simply encouraged rumour. Richard was many things, but he was not a fool. He was declared king by parliament and crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was hardly likely that he would be overthrown by a 12 year old boy, minor kings had been the scourge of England many times
+El Grande Gringo Fantastico "All of Europe was full of rumours of their deaths"? Where did you come up with that one? Because Mancini said he heard rumours he admitted he could not confirm? That's hardly all of Europe.
El Gringo. be honest, Bishop John Morton hated Richard, he knew Richard stood between him and an archbishopric. Every one of these rumours seems to have originated with him.
+Goodiesfanful Why are you so certain that Henry did not have opportunity? He imprisoned Edward, Clarence's son and John, Richard's illegitimate son. Eventually, He had them both killed. What makes you so certain he didn't get his hands on the princes? They were a far bigger threat to him than they were to Richard. As for not showing them to the public to quell rumours, in the first place, other than Mancini, and Richard would have had no way of knowing about him, there was very little curiosity in England over the boys whereabouts during Richard's short reign. That came afterward and was assiduously spread by Henry and his shill John Morton. The lack of contemporary uproar makes me doubt that they just vanished. I think that the people who actually had contact with them, the servants at the Tower, their mother and sisters, knew exactly where they were. Since part of the reason for removing them from the Tower would have been to prevent attempts to kidnap them, it's unlikely Richard would make their location public knowledge. There was a long tradition in the Tyrell household that the princes lived with them for some time, along with their mother and sisters. They my well have gone there from the Tower and remained until Tyrell took them to their Aunt Margaret's court in Burgundy. There is that pesky notation in the Burgundian account rolls of moneys spent "for the raising of Yorkist heirs". Edward and Richard are the only Yorkist heirs not accounted for.
Quite tellingly, the wording of the Act of Parliament which confirmed Tudor's kingship made no mention of his hereditary claim either through his marriage or via his Beaufort descent. Perhaps even more tellingly, it does not attempt to cite right of conquest either. ."Be it enacted by this present parliament...that the inheritance of the crowns of the realm of England remain in the person of our now sovereign lord King Harry the VIIth"
You make an interesting argument. However, live heirs [even questonable ones] have always been a threat - Richard lll, still has the best motive. I doubt it would have been possible to keep the 2 boys alive in the Tower for 3 years without someone blabbing it. But, not having been there personally, I still like to hear alternative theories. I was in the Tower and was shown the room where the 2 boys were presumably murdered back in the 60's. I have been interested in this ever since.
Somewhat reasonable statement, Mr. Sparacus, but neverthelss vulnerabel in more ways than one. Firstly, you say that Titulus Regius was by itself enough for Richard and he didn't need to have the princes killed, yet around 13:00 mins. you unwittingly provide a very good motive for Richard to dispose of the Princes - that their physical appearance might have instigated more turmoil. So despite Titulus Regius he still had reason to get them out of the way
I was reading how King Henry VII actually had a rather nice tomb made for King Richard III several years after the Battle of Bosworth. He also forced Elizabeth Woodville into retirement from the court and confiscated her land around the same time. It seemed like Henry Tudor felt righteous in his invasion and that he was bringing about Justice. While no one knew for certain, it was believed the Princes were murdered in 1483. Some believed that it was because Buckingham told people but I do not think Tudor had anything to do with it and discovered only later that there was more to the situation. There was something off with Elizabeth Woodville and that Richard III did not have the most to lose by the the Princes remaining alive.
I'm confused by your last sentence, can you explain? Are you proposing that Elizabeth Woodville was involved?
No. I am implying that a lot of people hated her. People assume that since Richard III had the most to lose if she got back into power that he must have been the one to murder the two princes. How did Richard III ascend to the throne so easily though. She angered other people. A lot of people wanted her out of power and to not ever come back.
The sad thing is people disliked her for being a commoner and having a voice.
I believe Richard was involved. The moment he decided to usurp the throne from his his nephew he knew he was painting a target on both boys back. He set the tone, basically saying kill them if you want. Even if he didn't kill them with his own hands he was involved.
uniquesongstress That is the way I use to see it as well. She was a commoner and that explained the dislike but I do not believe that any longer. Warwick really hated her and went so far that, to me, it implies there was a lot more going on there. Warwick executed her father and brother. Buckingham really hated her as well. Again her commoner status is the excuse but to have such hatred to your own sister-in-law and so on.
1Richard III was the lord protector of the Princes and responsible for their safety even if he did not order the princes to be killed it was his responsibility to keep them safe and he failed! 2.He decided to copy the tactic that his brother Edward used of murdering the threat to the thrown. If killing King Henry worked for his brother why not use it himself. 3. He thought declaring the princes illegitimate would make the fact that he murdered them more palpable and or be an alibi.
Agreed! These young boys were killed just because they were born of royalty and couldn't help but be pawns. The whole unjustness of it all rankles me but such is life......... :(
I'm the descendent of Thomas Savage of york,And Built the Savage chapel.And John savage of Rock savage Garden.
If Richard didn't do it, why didn't he just show the princes when the rumors were going on about him murdering them? And why weren't they seen if they were no threat? The princes were seen playing in the courtyard, then seen in the window, then never seen again.
If he did do it why not lay the blame at Buckinghams feet when he had him executed?
Sir James Tyrrell was one of my ancestors. I'd love for his name to be cleared!
Your logic is completely flawed - firstly if Richard murdered the two boys it might have caused revulsion but it couldn't cause rebellion because you cannot champion the Royal claim of a dead person, so as repulsed as people might have been people would have had no choice but to swallow it. Secondly, if the now illegitimate Edward V was no longer a threat why were the two princes made to remain in the tower. Richard III clearly had the two children murdered. Saying that a law made them illegitimate is nonsense, laws can always be repealed, the death of a Royal claimant cannot be repealed.
Hunger Cult Films Ltd Exactly. Well said. Nobody listens. It's because no one as honorable and loyal as Richard would do such a thing.:)
@@dobermangirl6549 It's not about being honorable or not it's about the facts. If Richard was indeed getting rid of the boys to stop uprising why not produce the bodies? He had the perfect chance to shift the blame on Buckingham yet he did not, why? Also why kill Edwards children but leave Georges son alive and well?
And finally, why is Tyrrell's pardon assumed to have been related to the princes' murder? He was a close aide of Richard and as such had good reason to fear Henry VII's ascension despite not being present at Bosworth Field.
Notwithstanding the above, if there is irrefutable evidence that Henry VII had found the princes very much alive in the Tower, it would then be clear who actually had them killed. Until then, it should be a hung jury (at best for Richard, may I add) ;)
Poppycock. The princes were last seen alive a number of months prior to the death of Richard III. Edward V, the older prince, was Richard's prisoner, and Richard also summarily executed the prince's adult supporters, including his uncle, Lord Rivers, on trumped up charges of treason. Richard also succeeded in persuading the widowed queen into turning over the younger prince to Him from sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. There is no evidence that the princes were alive at the end of Richard's reign, and as ironically noted, Richard had a powerful incentive to "bury" the young princes. Richard III's entire history after the death of his brother, Edward IV, shows that he was well aware of the danger that therir continuing existence presented to his crown, and that he was just the man to do them in.
Is there no effort to check the age of the bones of the princes to see when they really died? If Henry VII was the real culprit shouldn't history be corrected?
The bones in Westminster Abbey should be subjected to a proper forensic examination, however the present queen will not allow it. Shame!
Of course the princes were a threat to Richard. The law passed making them illegitimate could be revoked by his enemies and the Woodvilles.
of course he did- the rest is absurd and all too common bias
But traitors were usually executed in public and the bodies or at least the heads displayed on the city gates. These were definitely the bones of children, unusual (altho not unprecedented) for a traitor. And they weren't just buried; they were concealed.
Richard iii may have killled the Princes. But compared to the beloved Henry VIII, he's a saint lol
I am a skeptical. Thus, I cannot say "yes" for making Richard III a murder or the alternatives. I can only say every clue is possible but none is for sure because there is no concrete evidence to prove any of them. I do feel for Richard III to kill his nephews is less believable than for the King of Tudor to eliminate the two threats, because no matter what they were his blood brother's sons.
The way Richard got rid of Hastings, who was a supporter of Edward V, but an enemy of the Woodvilles says a lot about Richard's monarchical ambitions.
the victors write history ? or at least, affect the plays of Shakespeare...! if it is to be believed that the beauforts and tudor arranged the disappearances but richard iii, house of york, takes the blame
There are meny therys,but I from my point of view and what I read myself into this think the princes died of illness,something that was not uncomen spetialy when it comes to children at that time,some sorces even mentions that one of the princes were not well,and if one became ill it was very easy for the other brother to catch it,and for the corpses not being shown could be that they had to burry them in a hurry becose the illness was contagus,and to dig them up would be sacrelige at that time to spetialy to royals.
Also the fact that Elizabeth Woodville played a part at Richards inner circle signaled that she never tought he killed the boys,and as for Henry makeing Eliabeth Woodville retier you should remember she was a dower queen,and her daughter Elizabeth of York married Henry and became queen and should take pressense,and the land takeing was to secure that his children(her grandchildren)got the innheretense after her as she could not owne anything in a convent,never accuseing Henry of murdering the boys eather,or anyone else is a very strong signal that the boys died of illness.
I doubt that. If they had died naturally while still in the tower, their deaths would have been publicized and most likely would have been recorded in their doctor's notebooks. The doctor (whose name I can never remember) referred to the older son being ill, but never to his death. If they were sent out of the country, Edward could well have died on the journey.
Well there could be good reson they did not publisise it,one could be the innerstruggel remember at time they think princes died Richard was regent/protector of the boys and by announsing their deaths would been desasterus for him at that point
Edward, the elder brother, suffered from some kind of infection in his jaw, according to the doctor's records. It's unlikely that it was contagious. Richard's claim to the throne lay in the question of the legitimacy of the marriage between his brother, the king, and Elizabeth Woodville. If either or both of the boys had died of natural causes, there would have been a public funeral. Even if they had been murdered on Richard's order, there most likely would have been a claim of natural death and a public funeral. Secrecy on the question of the lives of his nephews could, in no way, benefit Richard.
Well Richard was in a week possition in the beginning of his brothers death when he was regent as meny pepol whent after him,if he had announsed their deaths weather they were natural or not it would have been desasterus as it would have been used as reson for invation of england(much quicker) by Henry,or other claimants to throne at time at same time when he knew he was in week possition.
As for the princes health remember that child mortalety were high even for royals at that time,and illness would come quick and kill quick and proberbly wasent recorded at Richards orders.
But one thing is for sure if they were murderd why would Elizabeth be in Richards inner circle,and marry her daughter off to Henry if she belived they murderd them,thats why I belive they died of illness.
BTW think you also have some good points as well Nancy,and it does make me think history somethink I love to think about:)
Nancy Benefiel The only suggestion Edward V had an infection comes from the bones found in the Tower. The older child's skeleton showed signs of chronic osteomyelitis of the jaw. No one contemporary ever recorded Edward having such an infection though.
Richard the 3rd had three close guards with him, one of them had keys to the tower. Richard knew all of he happenings around him and even he didn't physically murder the princes, he had another loyal guard Tyrell complete it. When the bodies were found in the white tower in a box under the staircase, there were two skeletons with clothing and capes that was made of velvet from the era of the 1470 onwards. There were no other missing royal children from that time. This was a time of violence and during the war of the roses when the English crown was uncertain. This was all taken from Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower if you would like further information and I believe it is the most credible.
Yes Krista. Everyone forgets that Richard did not know he would be dead in two years from his coronation. He hoped to return to London in triumph and continue his reign for many more years, leaving sons and grandsons to continue his dynasty. If the princes were still alive in August 1485, what did Richard intend to do with them, and when did he intend to do it? He had three options: 1. Release them. 2. Keep them prisoners for the rest of their lives, perhaps 50 years. 3. Do away with them. It was a no-brainer. Why people get all emotional about a man who died over five centuries ago is beyond me.
ian hood Well look, we don't get emotional it's just that we're trying to see who he really was as a king and as a man. Was he evil? Did he murder the princes?, etc are questions always told and yet we don't have an answer. Richard also thought that he knew he wasn't going to live after Bosworth.
Alice Weirs "Princes in the tower" book wasn't entirely credible.
Wendy Hull I'm going to read it. Why isn't it credible. I know she tends to be anti-Richard. Is that it?
Wendy Hull From everything I've read he was completely confident he would survive Bosworth. He had many more men than Richard, he was an experienced leader and warrior and except for the Stanleys he thought he had the loyalty of the nobility or most of them. As far as I know, like his brother Edward, he had never lost a battle. I'd be interested to know where you heard that.