Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[s0605474]

they got served, enough said

[Mari]

If any more of Baldwin's theory surfaces please post it. I would like to know his thinking. The one great thing about History is that new theory's come out and sometimes proved completely right as DNA and other tools are used.

[Kimberly]

Just bumping this thread up for appropriate posts.
Cheers.Kim

[Terence]

Interesting take on why Richard lost at Bosworth-

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-richard-iii

[Terence]

For those interested in this time period, a book on the women of the Wars of the Roses, actually contemporarily called the Cousins Wars.  I like that term much better as it is true to the times, not something made up later.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml
T

[Selencia]

My top candidate is Richard, he is the one with the means motive and access. The other suspects didn't have the access and even if they did have motive and did the deed they would have two other obstacles to the throne. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation of how Henry could accomplish their deaths from another country; who did he get to do it for him? Did he sneak in the country, kill them, then sneaked back out? I do think its possible that one of them died of an illness or natural causes, but I doubt both did.

[TimM]

It's possible the Princes were alive when Henry Tudor assumed the throne.  He had them killed because their claim would have been better than his.  Clear motive there folks.

I'm not saying for sure he did it, but he would have the motive for it.

[jehan]

It's possible the Princes were alive when Henry Tudor assumed the throne.  He had them killed because their claim would have been better than his.  Clear motive there folks.

I'm not saying for sure he did it, but he would have the motive for it.

Of course he would have, but it comes down to- is there ANY evidence that the boys were alive after 1483?  A motive means little if there was no opportunity.

[Maria Sisi]

I think despite all attempts to clear Richard's name and provide theories it was someone else I still think Richard did it.

One thing I don't understand is after the princes were declared illegitimate they were technically no longer of any use politically or in anyway else. So why were they still in the tower? Why weren't they just let go and given back to their mother? It makes no sense to me for Richard to keep them there after Parliament declared them illegitimate unless he still viewed them as threats to the throne. That looks like someone who is not confident of their position.

Wouldn't it make more sense for Richard to let the boys out and maybe welcome them at his court as a sign of family unity and a new future with Richard as king? Couldn't Richard give them new titles in recognition they were his brother's children but not eligible for the throne? Instead Richard kept them in the tower like they did with ex-king Henry VI. Keeping the princes in the tower just made Richard look like the usurper people claimed him to be instead of being the rightful king he claimed to be.

If Edward simply died of illness why wasn't it announced, why wasn't his mother told? Considering the era would people really be surprised the boy died young? And if Richard, Duke of York was let go and given to his mother as many claim why wasn't that done right away, with his brother, after Richard's crowning? If all that's true why was everything so hush hush? To me Edward's death by illness and Richard's release to his mother all happening in silence makes no sense at all. Shouldn't Richard be making all of this public when they happened instead? That would certainly make Richard look better. 

There are other people besides Richard with motives to kill the boys but only Richard had the power to set them free and he didn't. One day in 1483 the boys were seen playing in the courtyard and then the next thing you know it they were no longer seen at all, disappeared in thin air. It just makes sense for it to be Richard even if the evidence is circumstantial, the other candidates are too weak.

[jehan]

I agree with you.  I used to be an ardent Ricardian, but the facts just don't add up to it being anyone other than Richard (or someone in his circle).  The whole "illegitimacy" thing is a bit off anyways- everyone involved was conveniently dead, Richard and his army controlled London, the boys were already in the tower.  I don't know why it is accepted without question nowadays,- it sounds pretty trumped up to me. And apart from Stillington's word (and he had interests in doing Richard's will), there isn't a shred of evidence for an earlier marriage.  Eleanore Butler lived for 4 years into the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth.  Why did she not say anything?  Or anyone in her family?  Her family was the Earls of Shrewsbury (not commoners or minor nobility, but a powerful family) and she would have been Queen of England!  And she was dead by the time the boys were born anyway- Edward was only a "bigamist" ,if that he was, for the birth of his first 2 children- both girls.

And if the boys were "illegitimate"- then there were still and always would be a threat to Richard.  A 10 and 12 year old, maybe not, but 16 and 18 year olds with an army behind them in a disaffected kingdom a few years down the road?  You bet they would have been a threat while they were alive.  Henry Vll himself came from a line of dubious legitimacy, but it made no difference once his army won at Bosworth.  The imposters Warbeck and Simnel during the Tudor reign  shows the trouble that other claimants can cause- even if they aren't the real thing.

And once again I pose the question that is met with resounding silence from those who don't believe Richard did it- where is the evidence that they were alive after the summer of 1483?

[Kimberly]

Hi Jehan. I am a Ricardian - purely because this time period has always fascinated me and I have always had a predilection for the underdog. I wouldn't say that I was one of the "ardent" group of Ricardians. I do not believe Richard killed the boys but if evidence came up absolutely that he did then of course I would change my mind. You see, their murder is not an established fact just as there is no established proof positive evidence that they were whisked away from the Tower to a place of safety.
Their murder is NOT an absolute fact - initial rumours said only that they were dead, these rumours did not accuse Richard. Conversely, there were rumours also insisting that the boys were alive. Saying that, Richard is the clear "favourite"as the "murderer"......
  *   They disappeared whilst under his care.
  *     They disappeared after the "Usurpation".
   *     He made no attempt to produce the boys to clear his name.
HOWEVER... all of this is based on RUMOUR...
There isn't even an agreement on cause of death if they were killed so you can take your pick from below.
  * Poisoned.
  * Starved to death.
  * Put to the sword.
  * Drowned in Malmsey..( yep, just like good old Uncle George!! ).
  * Bled to death at the hands of an over zealous doctor.
  * Accidently fell from the bridge leading to the Tower.
  * Smothered between two feather beds, or a feather bed and a pillow, depending on which source you favour.
 A school of thought is that the boys were removed from the Tower to a place of safety ( well Richard of Shrewsbury at least because some believe that Edward had died by this time although, again, there is little to no evidence to back this up). There is no reliable evidence to place the boy/boys in England after Richard's accession so maybe we could look to Aunt Margaret Burgundy? !
There is extant a bill/receipt for clothing for "My Lord (s) Bastard from this time and Edward was known as Edward Bastard but this receipt could be referring to John, Richard's illigitimate son.
 As somebody has already posted, had Henry VII found the boys alive, he would swiftly and surely have had their heads separated from their shoulders...Kings 'eh..tsk tsk.:-)
To finish, there is one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is the bones in the urn are not those of the boys. ( and even if they were, it doesn't prove who killed them or how they died).
Happy Friday one and all.
Kimx

[DNAgenie]

Kimberly said

I am a Ricardian - purely because this time period has always fascinated me and I have always had a predilection for the underdog. I wouldn't say that I was one of the "ardent" group of Ricardians. I do not believe Richard killed the boys but if evidence came up absolutely that he did then of course I would change my mind. You see, their murder is not an established fact just as there is no established proof positive evidence that they were whisked away from the Tower to a place of safety.
Their murder is NOT an absolute fact - initial rumours said only that they were dead, these rumours did not accuse Richard. Conversely, there were rumours also insisting that the boys were alive.

and I agree with her.

Firstly, there is no evidence that the boys were murdered on Richard's orders and nobody knows what happened to them.

Secondly, Richard made no attempt to get rid of any of the other potential heirs to the throne, including the boy's eldest sister Elizabeth who would be an obvious target if he was that way inclined. She actually married Henry VII and so became a valuable asset in cementing HIS claim to the throne after Richard's death at Bosworth.  But instead of getting rid of her and her sisters Richard welcomed them all to court and paid for their maintenance there. And when his own son died he named his brother George's son, young Warwick, as his heir to the throne. So he had plenty of family feeling

Contrast that with Henry VII's behaviour after he became king. He married the boys' eldest sister Elizabeth to silence her and to validate his title to the throne (to which he had NO claim except by right of conquest), but all the other potential heirs to the Plantagenet line he had imprisoned  (some for many years) and eventually executed for political reasons. Historians acknowledge that it was his settled policy to exterminate the House of York, and they seem to regard it as an admirable and sensible response to the political situation. Yet Richard, because two of his nephews apparently disappeared on his watch, was painted as a monster. That has never made sense to me. I regard Henry VII as the monster in this scenario, not Richard.

[TimM]

I think a lot of people base their opinions of Richard III on the Shakespeare play.  The problem with that is that Shakespeare wrote this play a century later, when Richard's enemies, the Tudors, were still in power.  Of course, Richard III is gonna be portrayed as the bad guy.

If you brought Richard into a modern court of law and charged him with the deaths of the two Princes, the case would be quickly thrown out of court.  All the "evidence" against Richard is all hearsay, there were no actual witnesses to the supposed crime.

However, since the real Richard fought in the Battle Of Bosworth, the idea that he was humpbacked and had a withered arm is total rubbish.  Shakespeare made those up in his play.

Of course, the question remains is that those bones that were found in the Tower the remains of the two Princes.  They really should consider doing DNA tests on them.

[DNAgenie]

Of course, the question remains is that those bones that were found in the Tower the remains of the two Princes.  They really should consider doing DNA tests on them.

DNA tests are useless in isolation - they need to be compared with other tests to draw useful conclusions, and we do not have many results to draw on.

The most reliable DNA from ancient burials is mitochondrial DNA, inherited from the mother, but the Princes' mother was Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Woodville, and we have no idea what her mtDNA was like. It would be carried by her maternal-line descendants, like Elizabeth (Henry VII's queen) and her son Henry VIII, but I can't see that anyone getting permission to test the DNA from those royal skeletons for comparison purposes. I wonder if there are any female-line descendants of Henry VII's daughters, the Princesses Margaret and Mary? Margaret married James IV of Scotland, and Mary married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and both had female issue, so it is a possibility, though a remote one. Other possibilities lie through the maternal-line descent of Elizabeth's sisters. They all married, and presumably some of them had female children.

If we were very lucky the scientists might be able to extract Y-DNA from the bones in the Tower, which could be compared with that of Richard III, and the Beauforts, and that would be interesting. Then autosomal DNA, if extractable, might tell us whether the two boys were actually brothers (or at least closely related) but extracting ancient DNA from skeletal remains is always a toss up.

Then if the DNA suggests that the bones from the Tower came from two brothers, or that they were related to Richard III or the Beauforts, where does that get us?  It certainly won't get us closer to who killed them (if they were murdered). The Tower of London was a royal residence, and any number of people had access to it, so the field of potential murderers remains wide open, as it had always been.

[TimM]

I know it won't solve the murder, that will remain unsolved forever.

However, DNA would help prove that the bones are those of the Princes.  Yes, they were examined in 1933, but that was in prehistoric times, compared to the methods we have now.