Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[helenazar]

I think that it is generally believed that Richard III was responsible for the death of his nephews Edward V and his brother Richard, the Duke of York, and usurping the throne of England.  
 
There is a theory out there though, that Richard actually believed that he was doing the right thing by taking the throne, when he found out that his nephew may not be the rightful heir because of being illegitimate due to  their father's previous marriage, and which made Richard the true heir to the throne. Also, this theory holds that Richard was not the one who had the princes killed, but it was done on the orders of Henry Tudor, who wanted to discredit Richard and pave the way to the throne for himself.  
 
I am curious what others think about this. Thanks.

[rskkiya]

    England had a history of not being well ruled by boy kings.... so I could understand the logic of this. However I do believe that Richard did think them bastards, I don't think this was a just a ploy to get power.
    I do not believe that he killed them - there was no reason for such an act.

White Rose/White Boar Forever!
rskkiya

[KentKim]

There was a thread on this already under "The Windsors," most likely started before "The Tudors" had their own section.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Windsor;action=display;num=1120880736;start=0

[Arianwen]

There was a thread on this already under "The Windsors," most likely started before "The Tudors" had their own section.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Windsor;action=display;num=1120880736;start=0

There was a thread regarding this before the one you linked, started by yours truly, and I've been trying to get both moved over here, but I don't have moderator priviledges over at the Windsors. This is really where they belong, though.

Regards,
Arianwen

[ilyala]

oy here we go again

not saying richard did it but definitely not henry ... that sums up what i said in those two threads mentioned above

[Kimberly]

BUCKINGHAM..........

[umigon]

Ilyala, at last we are in the same group! He he he!


Yes, definitely not Henry Tudor.

[Arianwen]

BUCKINGHAM..........

I completely agree.

See? New record for my shortest post on the subject.

Regards,
Arianwen

[Prince_Lieven]

MARGARET BEAUFORT or BUCKINGHAM

That's my 2 cents, as I have mentioned before.

[ilyala]

highly unlikely as margaret beaufort... if the motive was the same as henry's, she can also be excluded...

not to mention she didn't have much of an opportunity to do anything

[umigon]

Although I do not exclude the Duke of Buckingham, I still think that neither Henry, nor Margaret, did it. My main suspect still is... Richard... typical enough, but he continues to be, for me, the one who had the best motive and the easiest opportunity!

[ilyala]

unfortunatly for the many yorkists on this board that is the most likely version...

[Kimberly]

 

[Mgmstl]

Although I do not exclude the Duke of Buckingham, I still think that neither Henry, nor Margaret, did it. My main suspect still is... Richard... typical enough, but he continues to be, for me, the one who had the best motive and the easiest opportunity!

And the most to gain from their death.  Richard did it or had it done.  However it happened he was in the middle of the deed.

[Mgmstl]

I think that it is generally believed that Richard III was responsible for the death of his nephews Edward V and his brother Richard, the Duke of York, and usurping the throne of England.  
  
There is a theory out there though, that Richard actually believed that he was doing the right thing by taking the throne, when he found out that his nephew may not be the rightful heir because of being illegitimate due to  their father's previous marriage, and which made Richard the true heir to the throne. Also, this theory holds that Richard was not the one who had the princes killed, but it was done on the orders of Henry Tudor, who wanted to discredit Richard and pave the way to the throne for himself.  
  
I am curious what others think about this. Thanks.

Helen, this theory is called "revisionism".   Why else would he usurp the throne?  To complete his usurping of the throne he had to make himself a king with no competition, and therefore the young princes, or actually the King & his heir the Prince, had to be gotten rid of.  

Richard had the most to gain by their death, he had more than ample opportunity and motive.