Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brits are divided on this to this day, and it is endlessly argued back and forth, but then the remains of two young males were found concealed under a stairway in the Tower of London. Twelve-year-old Edward V, expecting his coronation, was taken to the Tower of London along with his nine-year-old brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. But the accession never occurred, and Richard took the thone. Medieval dynastic politics are full of such doings, and the Plantagenets especially were willing to do away with rivals for the throne, even their fathers.
Nobody really knows, however the evidence points to Richard III, although there are two other notable suspects in Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Henry VII.
This is probably one of those things we will never know. All the theories have major holes in them. Historian Alison Weir firmly believes Richard III was personally responsible for their deaths. See her book "The Princes in the Tower". For a contrary view, Betram Fields, author of "Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes", believes that Richard III was innocent. Both of these are very good books.
Personally, I do not believe that Richard III personally committed or even authorized the murders, if indeed they were murdered. Not saying I am necessarily right. But if they were murdered by others, I think he bears ultimate responsibility since it was on his "watch".
I do not believe Weir's premise that Richard III was an absolute ogre who plotted to steal the Crown from the beginning. I think she gets a bit rabid with her anti-Richard sentiments. But I don't accept the position of many Ricardians, that he was a totally blameless victim of circumstance, either. I do think that the death of his brother placed him in a very bad position. But I think there were some things he could have done very differently.
So many of the chroniclers had ulterior motives that I look at all of them with a skeptical eye. I fervently hope that one day we will find a long-lost document or account that will have some answers.
I believe he was involved in the deaths of the princes - even if it was passively allowing it, he could have nearly positively protected them had he chosen to. Instead, they both conveniently disappeared and he ascended the throne.
I hold him responsible, for what that's worth, which is nothing.
I believe he was involved in the deaths of the princes - even if it was passively allowing it, he could have nearly positively protected them had he chosen to. Instead, they both conveniently disappeared and he ascended the throne.
I hold him responsible, for what that's worth, which is nothing.
I have to agree with you, this happened on Richard's watch, and the Lord Protector obviously did not protect them. Moreover he went out of his way to gain custody of the two young princes. He intercepted Edward V and company at Stoney Stratford, arresting those in charge of the prince, and subsequently had them beheaded at Pontefract castle. I think that demonstrates bad intent to start with.
As soon as Richard had both the young princes in the tower Edward V's coronation was postponed indefinitely, by Richard, and moves were afoot to declare Edward V illegitimate as heir to the throne based on Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, said to be illegitimate because of a pre-contract on Edward's part to marry Lady Eleanor Butler.
That Richard was moving to take the throne for himself seems obvious to me. Wicked uncles are a regular feature of medieval dynastic politics, and one can understand a noble thinking, I could bend the knee to my older brother, but never to my snotty nosed nephew!
It cannot be proven, but I believe Richard III had the two young princes, disposed of.
At the Tower of London, there is a poll you can take as to whether or not you think Richard III was responsible for his nephews' deaths. Many more people believe he was than not. This proves nothing, but is interesting all the same.
At the Tower of London, there is a poll you can take as to whether or not you think Richard III was responsible for his nephews' deaths. Many more people believe he was than not. This proves nothing, but is interesting all the same.
I have to agree with the majority at the tower. To be sure it proves nothing, but I think had anyone else but Richard been responsible it seems to me he would have done something about it once king. Nothing was ever done, and the two young princes were never seen again.
The remains of two young males were found in the tower, buried 10 ft under the staircase leading to the chapel of the White Tower, and since the Church of England has refused to allow them to be subjected to DNA analysis to confirm their identity. I really do have to wonder why.
Oh, and then 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.
Tyrell was posthumously attainted on 25 January 1504, but no mention of any confession was made. In fact, the attainder was reversed three years later, on 19 April 1507. Pretty odd for someone who had admitted to murdering the Princes.
More did not witness any of the events in his famous "History of King Richard III". (His source was probably Bishop John Morton, in whose household he had served as a page.) He possibly fabricated Tyrell's "confession" to give credence to his imaginative description of the murders.
That all sounds plausible, but still, Richard was a Plantagenet, and a Plantagenet would kill anyone he had to for the throne. The entire history of the dynasty makes that abundantly clear. That he went out of his way to get both young princes confined in the tower, then postponed Edward's coronation indefinitely as the two princes vanished forever with no trace, an not a single mention of it afterward by Richard or his court looks pretty shady to most. He knew he had to kill both of them, because had he only killed the oldest the throne would have only passed to the younger.
I'll always believe Richard had it done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
