UK - Were the boy princes murdered in Tower by King Richard III? - 1483

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by badhorsie, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. badhorsie

    badhorsie Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]


    Spring 1483 Edward V (12) and Richard, Duke of York (9) went to live in the Tower of London, at the time a royal residence, after the death of their father. They were taken there by their uncle Richard who was their "protector".

    While there they were declared to be illegitimate and uncle Richard was crowned Richard III in June of the same year. After August the young brothers were never seen again.

    Children's bones were found in the Tower in the 17th century.

    Did they belong to the boys? If so who killed them? This may seem like a no brainer but there have been various theories over the years.
    This one is from the Richard III Society
     
  2. Loading...


  3. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. believe09

    believe09 New Member

    Messages:
    28,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. badhorsie

    badhorsie Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you read the (admittedly long) link that I provided, other theories are expounded. I have enormous respect for Alison Weir but I also love a good discussion
     
  6. twocuriouscats

    twocuriouscats Searching for Killer Owls

    Messages:
    860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    What a gorgeous picture of the boys - thank you for sharing that. Yes, they were probably killed or neglected and left to starve in the tower....I find it fascinating that Richard III's body may have been found - with a glaring deformity - just as it was written...
     
  7. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shakespeare - pro-Yorkist in fealty to his Queen, Elizabeth I - pours it on RIII's Plantagenet head as the soon to be crowned Richard addresses the older of the princes he will (allegedly, in real life) have killed, warning the princes about "false friends" (though if RIII did have the princes killed, one would think of this passage as the ultimate "With 'friends' like Richard, who needs enemies?" construct):
     
  9. believe09

    believe09 New Member

    Messages:
    28,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Weir actually spends a good part of the book including alternate theories. She absolutely gave the Richard the III Society quite a bit of time and respect. I just happen to agree with her conclusions. :)
     
  10. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A question that's featured lately in both the Telegraph and the Independent: if the bones found in Leicester last week do turn out to be Richard III's, should he be given a state funeral even though many find him culpable in the matter of the boys' deaths (one of whom was a monarch, recall - making RIII a regicide)?

    Historian calls for Richard III state funeral (Independent)

    Damn it, let's give Richard III one last, glorious summer (Telegraph)

    and also topical:

    Finding Richard III would expose the ever-shifting ground of history (Guardian)
    The discovery of remains that could belong to Richard III reminds us how fluid is our understanding of the past

    Almost o/t trivia note: Richard III was the last English monarch physically to lead his troops into battle - and that's how he was killed, at Bosworth Field, on 22 August 1485.

    (And p.s. I do think Richard III was responsible for the young princes's deaths - still reading though - and I do not think he should receive a state funeral. It's probably too late to save me - I've been influenced by far too great an extent by the Shakespeare play!)
     
  11. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And finally, still more links, these dealing directly, more or less, with the whodunnit? question:

    Short, to the point, and with many readers' comments after the article:

    Did Richard III really kill the princes in the tower? (dailykos.com)

    A much more thorough look at Richard's alleged culpability:

    The Case Against Richard III (monarchsofengland.tripod.com)

    And Daily Mail, not only combining the state funeral/deaths of the princes questions, but managing also to be its regular old xenophobic self in the process!

    Yes, he may have killed the princes in the Tower, but now we should give our last ENGLISH king a decent burial
     
  12. bearx

    bearx New Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for all the links! I saw this case years and years ago on an old show, I think it was called "In Search Of.." and I've always thought it was Richard. I haven't really seen that anyone else had as much to gain.
     
  13. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. KarlK

    KarlK New Member

    Messages:
    1,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I always wondered what title would be used in a case against a reigning king, since the monarch is -theoretically- the prosecuting party. Richard III vs Richard Plantagenet?
     
  15. KarlK

    KarlK New Member

    Messages:
    1,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More seriously now, the case is indeed not an open-and-shut case. Richard had succeeded in making his claim to the throne perfectly legal regardless of Edward being alive or not and it could be argued that the chances of having this claim successfully challenged by Edward were quite slim, so why take the risk of murdering the child and his younger brother? Sure it is suspicious that both princes disappeared but disease cannot be ruled out. Like most European royal houses of the day the Plantagenets were prone to illness and Richard may have had reason to believe that making this public would undermine his position as he was suspected of being sickly himself. When we approach these cases we must try and grasp the mentality, beliefs and politics of the day. And also perhaps avoid judging personalities that have been portrayed in plays based on how they appear in those plays, which were after all mostly fiction.
     
  16. FrayedKnot

    FrayedKnot Former Member

    Messages:
    4,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perkin Warbeck almighty!

    Kidding. I, too, have always thought RIII's reputation was justly deserved and that the Princes died in the Tower either as a result of neglect or outright murder.

    Thanks for starting this thread!!!!!
     
  17. marycarney

    marycarney Inactive

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My late mother was fascinated by this aspect of English history, and would have really sunk her teeth into this thread. Thanks for posting.
     
  18. Fukiyama

    Fukiyama Member

    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    In Search Of... is a great show. It is definitely helped by being narrated by Leonard Nimoy.

    I would love to see HM the Queen allow the bones in Westminster and the coffins at Windsor to be fully examined. Given that Richard III's bones were able to be identified after so long, such examinations would be very informative, at least as far as providing rule-outs.

    Given all the effort put into killing off the remaining Plantagenet heirs by Henry VII and VIII, I do not rule out the Tudor angle, but Richard III is the obvious suspect, regardless of Shakespeare's propaganda.
     
  19. Hayley1452

    Hayley1452 New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excellent points! Also like you say why would Richard take the risk of murdering the boys? The only possible reason is to stop up-risings in their names but not displaying the bodies wouldn't stop that in the slightest. And why did Henry VII never accuse him ? He was doing everything else to discredit Richard but he never once mentioned that crime. Even the supposed confession from Tyrell was never made public.

    It is my belief that they were murdered but by Buckingham the second most powerful man in the country. Buckingham had been spending an awful lot of time with Bishop Morton who was a staunch Lancastrian supporter. When Richard went on royal progress Buckingham met Richard at Gloucester the two had a furious row and the two never spoke again. Buckingham went straight to his estates in Brecon where Morton was and from there started a rebellion against Richard with Morton later leaving to join Henry Vii's mother. And years later A man named Thomas More who wrote a detailed account of what happened to the princes, who was around 2 at the time of Bosworth, had grown up in the household of Morton.
     
  20. Elley Mae

    Elley Mae The enemy is here. beware

    Messages:
    16,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I just watched a show, history channel or mysteries at the museum.

    https://kriii.com/about-the-centre/

    Philippa Langley

    http://www.philippalangley.co.uk/

    ..............................


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...olved-after-more-than-500-years-10466190.html

    Philippa Langley, the historian and screenwriter who spearheaded the Looking for Richard project that resulted in one of the greatest historical discoveries of modern times – the grave of Richard III located beneath a car park in Leicester – is back once more, attempting to crack the case, The Independent can reveal.

    It is widely assumed the Plantagenet King Richard III killed his nephews in the summer of 1483 after their father, Edward IV, died.


    “I have three key lines of investigation – two that have never been investigated before,” she said. “There are a couple of European lines of inquiry that are looking very interesting. We do know that [Richard III’s successor] Henry Tudor tried to destroy all copies of Richard’s legal right to the throne, the Titulus Regius. What we don’t know is how much of the other paperwork he destroyed quietly behind the scenes. So, we’re hoping that further [destruction] might not have taken place on the Continent. There might be more information available over there.”
     
  21. Bohemian

    Bohemian Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,156
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In recent years, my mother has been researching our genealogy and has found that we are descendants of The Plantagenets, through John I (John Lackland). I think she told me that King Henry II and Aliénor d'Aquitaine were my 27th(?) great grandparents.

    I'm sure she would love to know if Richard III was responsible for the deaths of the 'Princes in the Tower' so thank you all for the links you've provided.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice