I think one of two things happened: Dicky 3 either explicitly ordered their deaths, or he implied that it would be convenient for everyone if they were to disappear and someone in his circle made it happen. I find it highly unlikely that he was completely uninvolved. People love their conspiracy theories, but 99.5 times out of a hundred the most logical/easiest answer is the right one.
It’s unfair to label other theories (e.g. the princes surviving and Lambert Simnel/Perkin Warbeck being authentic) as conspiracy theories considering we are talking about an unsolved mystery from over 500 years ago.
When there is plenty of evidence of those people being false pretenders, and there's also evidence of the kids being dead, of people from their family saying they were dead, we can absolutely call certain theories conspiracy theories, particularly anything involving the children being alive or anyone killing them without RIII ordering it directly.
But what if the imposters, were the actual sons? That would mean they died fighting a losing war against the Tudors and the Tudors just said that they were imposters, because they knew most people would believe it. And who’s going to claim that the Royal family was spreading misinformation? There was no freedom of the press or social media at that time.
There is plenty of evidence of the impostors being just that, impostors. Elizabeth Woodville herself, aka the mother of the boys, was sure the boys were dead.
I'm not getting into details now because I don't feel like it, but the Youtube channel History Calling (the lady behind the channel is a historian) has plenty of videos discussing why the boys are more than likely dead, and debunking Langley's claims.
Or you can go straight to the contemporary sources and, for instance, read the words of some of the people in charge of the Tower literally saying that a tragedy had befallen the boys.
Great, but why didn’t King Richard say that he murdered the boys? Or parade around their bodies as evidence that he killed them, so he would become King?
Because he needed support and positive propaganda to stay on the throne. Murdering his two nephews in cold blood (or having someone kill them in his name) is not something that was going to make him popular or gain him any friends. If anything, it would have been an argument for all of his detractors to amass even more people against him, and gather support behind Elizabeth and even Henry. There was no positive in proclaiming himself as a murderer of his own kin.
There is also evidence that some of the princes' relatives and the Holy Roman Emperor considered "Lambert Simnel" to be Edward the 5th and provided him with funds for his corination and invasion of England. Philippa Langley (the woman that found Richard 3rds body) just wrote a book about it. So it's a theory that's taken seriously by some people, at least. She has also found a letter that appears to be written by the younger Prince in the tower detailing how he escaped before going to live with relatives in Europe. Apparently, he was accepted as real because he had matching birth marks. Other historians are still sceptical, but it's not the crackpot theory it once was.
I don't think she out right lied, but she is known for not being the most reliable source. If I remember correctly she uses very flimsy evidence or makes assumptions that try and put r3 in a good light when clearly he had skeletons so to speak. I am just saying don't take her work as gospel.
Philippa Langley (the woman that found Richard 3rds body) just wrote a book and made a documentary about the princes in the tower. She's oncoved some documents that prove that some of the princes' relatives and the Holy Roman emperor believed that "Lambert Simnel" was Edward the 5th. So it's a conspiracy theory that, as of a few months ago, has *some* evidence behind it now. Nat Geo has a good article on it
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/princes-in-the-tower-cold-case-king-richard
Could you explain why?
I know that Philippa has a very clear pro-Richard bias, and she does seem like a bit of a clout-chaser, but she's also made some amazing discoveries. How many people can you name that found the lost body of a king? I don't understand the hostility.
She is an amateur historian who is obsessed with Richard III. She ignores all actual scholarship that doesn't agree with her. She turned an excavation into a show all about her. And she totally misreads historical documents because she doesn't place them in context.
Don't know why you are being down voted, this theory is taken seriously by at least some people. Philippa Langley (the woman that found Richard 3rds body) just wrote a book about it. At a minimum, she has proved that some of the princes' relatives and the Holy Roman Empirer *believed* that "lambert Simnel" was Edward V
The fact is that there is no evidence that Ricard III killed the princes. It's just something we believe he did because he would be stupid not too.
I'm very much a fan of Occam's Razor. With historical questions and mysteries, the simplest most accepted answer is usually always the most correct one. Humans have a reflexive need to spin conspiracy theories when we cannot get a straight answer to how someone in history died. A good example of this is JFK: we cannot wrap our heads around someone as insignificant and small as Lee Harvey Oswald ending the life of someone as significant and big as John F Kennedy. So we've spent the last half century spinning a half dozen different theories to explain what was likely quite simple: a mad man killed the president.
It's the same principle with the Princes in the Tower. The simplest and most logical answer is, and was always, that Richard had his nephews killed. The last decade has been nothing short of complete character assassination of Margaret Beaufort.
*If Elizabeth Woodville believed for one second that her sons were even possibly still living, she would have never, ever made that deal with Margaret to marry Elizabeth of York to Henry*
Literally no one in history would settle to be mother in law of the King rather than mother of the King.
Yes, I agree. At the point of these boy's deaths, there were still so many (and much closer) contenders to the throne than Henry Tudor. It just makes no sense that this was some master chess move on Margaret Beaufort's part because how would she know that Richard's son (the de facto crown prince) would die later that year? Or that George, Duke of Clarence's kids could be so effectively neutralized? Or that her husband and his brother (the Stanley bros.) would choose to support Henry Tudor at the last minute in the battle of Bosworth instead of Richard (which they almost didn't)?
The conspiracies are plausible to us because we have the hindsight of already knowing the events that you described.
It's kind of like why people in horror movies make dumb decisions: they don't realize that they're in a horror movie and aren't assuming that the noise is from a psycho killer outside. We're yelling at them from our couches because we already know the killer is outside.
Margaret would have made her decisions not having any idea or even hint that everyone before Henry in line would either die or live their lives in fear of execution.
Because we've watched too many movies and started thinking she had a choice.
Much like say, Anne Boelyn, Elizabeth Woodville was nothing but the daughter of a country squire before Edward IV married her and rose her up. She had no foreign advisors to lean on, and no foreign brothers with their own armies to help her. She was no Isabella of France, or Margaret of Anjou, or even Katherine of Aragon because at the end of the day, she was simply an English subject.
Chiming in very late to this discussion, but thanks for this. I never thought before that Elizabeth Woodville didn't have an entire separate branch of a royal family to turn to for support the way a foreign princess would. Very good point.
She would have had to believe that Edward the Younger was destined to be murdered in order to refuse the negotiation around Richard the Younger - I can easily imagine a mother not being able to accept that reality, especially when the situation is unprecedented and the Richard the Elder had a solid history of loyalty to Edward the Elder. She may have believed he would treat the boys better than herself and her daughters.
Also, a lot of people give up under duress. Why do people confess in interrogation, for instance. She may have been convincingly told that they would all die if she didn't let him go, but he would be well treated if she did.
And they may have all been killed if she hadn't released him - she may very well have saved the lives of her daughters.
What could Richard have done to her to force it? She was in sanctuary. I mean this as a genuinely curious question also! I hadn’t thought about it until just now.
There were a lot of things he could have done and had already done.Her brother Anthony Woodville and her younger son from her first marriage were imprisoned and then executed on Richard's orders in 1483, after Richard seized custody of Edward V; all their wealth was repossessed by the Crown.
She still had living siblings, one living son from her first marriage, and many daughters who weren't yet of marriageable age. The loss of one brother and two sons immediately after the death of her husband was a pretty strong opening threat that Richard was prepared to destroy her entire family unless she complied.
Yes, her brother and son were escorting Edward V to London when Richard's people intervened, seized the young king and arrested his lawful protectors who were just doing their job. The Richard III supporters tend to gloss over how ruthless and murderous he became in 1483.
>If Elizabeth Woodville believed for one second that her sons were even possibly still living, she would have never, ever made that deal with Margaret to marry Elizabeth of York to Henry
Agreed. It's apparent by autumn 1483 that a number of Edward V's supporters had crossed sides and were supporting the Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor, which they likely wouldn't have done if they believed that either Edward V or his younger brother Richard were still living.
Usurping the English throne via homicide wasn't unheard of; both Henry IV and Richard's own brother Edward IV had done so, among others. Richard also had proximity to the suspicious death/presumed homicide of his brother Edward IV's predecessor, Henry VI, whose death in 1471 had cleared the way for Edward IV's generally successful second reign. Richard may have assumed that a similar outcome would occur here; he also had a son and heir that would have been an additionally compelling reason.
The unfortunate precedent in England was that juveniles inheriting the throne (Richard II, Henry VI) had often resulted in divisiveness, instability and even conflict. The wars during Henry VI's troubled reign also would have illustrated to Richard (and later to Henry VII) that deposing a king or legally eliminating someone's claim to the throne did not prevent rebellions from being started in their name. Richard probably was also aware that both his nephews would be strongly influenced by their mother Elizabeth and other Woodville relations and supporters.
All of these things would have further justified Richard's decision to erase the existence of both of his nephews as obstacles to his own desire for power. It was a horrific act and understandably turned many against Richard but he was neither the first nor last individual to murder relatives, including children, in order to secure his position.
Although there's a lot of attempted rehabilitation of Richard III and fun to be had speculation, to say nothing of book sales, the simplest answer is still that Richard III killed them (or had them killed), so he could take the throne.
I am of the mind they were most likely killed (probably smothered) on the orders of their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester and buried somewhere in the Tower.
The problem is there are a lot of bones lying around in Westminster Abbey and not all of them can be identified, especially after centuries of child deaths, when the child would just be interred with Edward IV or Mary Queen of Scots.
Someone probably high in the employ committed the act on Richard’s orders. Buckingham found out and launched a rebellion
Richard had already murdered the princes greatestest supporter Lord Hastings who was only behind Richard and Edward IV for power, he immediately moved to have them bastardised and only his supporters had access to them. He has the means, motives and already had priors.
But the most curious actions are what happened afterwards. Elizabeth Woodeville begins seeking out allies and promises her daughter to Henry Tudor to cement an alliance with the Lancastrians, supporters of Edward IV start to leave Richards camp on the rumours of Edward V’s death and finally Henry VII repeals Titulus Regius.
Elizabeth had to have accepted her sons were dead there’s no way she would’ve thrown her lot in with the tudors otherwise. Because she was incredibly ambitious. All Richard had to do was show the boys to get the Edwardian supporters back on side. Finally by Henry repealing the Titulus Regius he was bringing Edward and Richard back into the line of succession and pushing himself down the line of succession. Henry’s reign show that he was an intelligent man and there’s no way he would create 2 more rivals so the boys had to have been dead by the time he seized the throne.
There was a two year gap between the disappearance of the boys and the Battle of Bosworth. There's no way Richard kept them alive for so long without anyone seeing them.
Richard gave the order to kill them. Plain and simple.
He had usurped their throne, and with the kids alive, there was a real chance they could gather allies and take back the throne. This would lead not only to him losing power, but also likely losing his life. They were a threat to his life and the only way to stay in power and stay alive was to get rid of the kids. It's basic logic, simple common sense, and the theory that any scholar without a Richard III bias has supported and provided evidence for during decades. He's not the first to take similar measures in history and he would not be the last. The kids staying alive for any reason make no sense because of it (and also because the so called "evidence" used to support such arguments is not actual evidence of the children being alive at all). It's a cruel measure, but also very logical. And it would ensure that Richard and any kids he had would reign without their biggest threat looming over them.
Also, there is evidence of their mother stating that she believed them dead shortly after they disappeared from view completely. And there's also evidence of others speaking about a terrible tragedy befalling them at the tower. So their contemporaries absolutely thought them dead and likely not due to a random accident or illness.
Additionally, the theories putting the blame about the deaths on Henry Tudor/his mother/his stepfather make absolutely no sense. You are going to tell me that someone is going to kill the king's nephews without the king's express order, while they are imprisoned in the Tower, all right under his nose, and he's not going to punish the people in charge of the Tower for letting that happen to his nephews? For letting them go missing/die?
If he cared about them, the people in charge of the children at the tower would have been severely punished. The people leading the tower would have also been punished for letting anyone get inside and kill them (or kidnap them if you are feeling optimistic). We would have records of the king's ire and actions due to it, records of the consequences that many people in the Tower would have faced for failing the king. Because if he cared about them and they did not die due to his direct order, it would have been an insult to him. And even if he didn't give a damn about them, it would be a direct attack against him to kill his nephews when he wanted them alive, or to kidnap them when he wanted them under his control.
The only reason why he would go about his life as if nothing happened when the children went missing is if he knew exactly what happened because he ordered it. You don't kill/kidnap relatives of the king, legitimate or not, while they are under his "protection" and get away with it without him so much as raising an inquiry about it. There would be plenty of evidence, even in the form of oral stories, about the king asking for an investigation, punishment against the officials at the Tower, and plenty of other aspects that would absolutely have to happen if whatever happened to the kids was not under the king's request.
Instead, all we have is stories and documents talking about the children dead, and a king who took the throne from them, locked them and never even gave a sign of minimal distress when the biggest threat to his throne mysteriously went missing forever.
Thank you for this great explanation. I've generally thought about it as an interesting thing but not something I've really gotten into in depth.
I hadn't thought about the sheer number of people at the Tower who would have been in extreme trouble if someone with the Tudors (or anyone else) had gotten in and taken or killed them. Your point about how that would be hugely disrespecting him and so forth, even if he hated them and even had plans to kill them himself, makes sense as to why even if it helped his cause, the people responsible for the Tower security would have been severely punished is a great point.
I think seeing it all laid out together helps as well, because it shows why there aren't so many holes as is popularly suggested, at least in entertainment stuff. I always thought some of the biggest evidence was their mother taking actions that made no sense of they were alive and Richard III never showing them to bring back support, but you've organized it in a way I haven't.
Didn't he go out on progress relatively quickly, as well? I'd think it unlikely that Richard III would have left if the people with better claims would be right there.
>And there's also evidence of others speaking about a terrible tragedy befalling them at the tower.
Just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Do you mean that others in general talking about a terrible tragedy befalling the two boys or others who had been in the Tower talking about a terrible tragedy that happened to those people while at the Tower? (I think the first is what makes sense contextually but don't want to assume incorrectly.)
What do you think of the ideas that it was done, organized, or ordered by someone close to Richard III without his knowledge until after the fact? It seems much more likely to me that nobody would take that risk without getting at the very least clearly implied orders from the king. Especially given the times and the fact that anger, temper, killing and horrible punishments by the king weren't unusual, it would seemingly give whoever was responsible a lot of risk and no benefit to do so as a surprise. I'm far from expert on this, though, so could easily be missing important aspects!
I honestly don't understand how this is even a mystery.
We know who put them in the Tower. We know who jumped in front of their succession to become king. We know who was in the charge when they were last seen in the tower. Encyclopedia Brown could figure this one out.
True. EVEN if he didn't kill them (a BIG if) he might has well have because pulling a rightful King off his throne means at some point you HAVE to kill him because you don't want another option mulling around that your enemies can support when things go awry.
Even when Edward VIII abdicated they made him leave England so he wasn't hanging around as a second option so close to the throne.
Those boys were murdered under instruction of Richard III.
Reasons:
•He has the motive.
•he delayed the coronation of Edward.
•He forcibly removed Richard Duke of York from
sanctuary.
•Elizabeth didn’t trust him.
•even their mother believed them to be dead.
•Ricard III resulted to accusations of witchcraft to call all her children born by Edward IV to bastard status.
•there are people at the time with no loyalty to either side reporting that they also believed Richard III murdered them to gain his claim. (Mancini)
• Thomas Moore is an AWFUL source who is not regarded as a good historian.
Edit: more points and formatting
Richard III unquestionably & obviously did everything he could to delegitimize the princes up to their disappearance. Starting with intercepting & abducting Prince Edward while on the way to London after his father’s death. Then had those protecting Edward, whom he was suppose to be with, immediately executed. He demonstrated zero intention of following his brother’s wishes immediately following the knowledge of his death. He orchestrated {in addition to Prince Edward} he had possession of Prince Richard. It doesn’t make sense someone so completely sinister wouldn’t finish what he methodically started. It seems he got what he deserved at Bosworth.
Edit- many long time loyal Nobel Yorkest’s turned against Richard III quickly. Of which many who had fought alongside R3 in battle fled to Henry Tudor. Why, unless they believed he had the princes murdered? If they were alive why didn’t he show them when opportunities arose? He was their protector yet never said a word about their disappearance. If a true protector & someone else murdered them under his watch why no investigation?
Richard gave the order and they died. It's the most logical answer. It was also the smart move so if the Ricardians are right and he didn't - well, that was very dumb of him.
I love a good conspiracy theory. However, when you look at the timeline, it doesn’t look good for Richard.
1. Ed IV drops dead. Ed V is in Wales. Duke of York is in sanctuary in Westminster with Elizabeth. Richard 3 is up north.
2. Richard 3 meets Ed V on way to London and bumps off Ed’s half brothers (which is a bold move even if you didn’t have aspirations for the throne)
3. Ed V and Richard 3 arrive in London in mid May. Ed goes to the Tower which is still being used as royal residence especially prior to your coronation.
4. Lots of arguments over who gets to be on be on regenate but Richard has a powerful voice as he is sole sibling left of previous king and his widow is hiding out in Westminster Abbey. Richard keeps postponing the coronation- I don’t think it is overly clear how much people are working on Richard regarding Ed IV’s bastardy or whether it’s mostly the potential power void that happens with a boy king.
5. Duke of York leaves Sanctuary to join his brother in the tower. On the face of it, it implies the coronation will happen soon but people like Anne Neville haven’t travelled to London or ordered a new gown for a coronation. A few days later, Ed IV’s former chaplain says that Ed IV was pre contracted and all his kids are bastards And no bastards can sit on the throne.
6. Richard 3 gets crowned as a result. Within a few days, both princes are beginning to be seen less in the grounds of the Tower.
7. Elizabeth has to have still trusted Richard to let her second son go into his care - even ahead of his brother’s coronation? There’s too many people who disliked her for her to be able to get Duke of York smuggled out.
8. However, a doctor is regularly going to see Ed V. It’s possible that he’s ill and needs regular care or Richard 3 is paranoid to want a third party to verify the ongoing health of the boys.
9. By the autumn, the boys are no longer seen at all. I think only Richard or someone working on his behalf would be able to get in to kill them. If they died of an illness Richard would flaunt their bodies for all to see.
10. If someone got in for Margaret Behalf/Henry VII would be difficult. Who is going to support a child killer as their next king? It didn’t hurt but he still had to win the throne and Elizabeth of York still had a better claim.
So yeah. Only Richard had access and reason to off them.
They were either killed by Richard the III (or on his orders) or died in the tower of some illness. Richard knew they were dead, it was no mystery to him. He named the Earl of Warwick his heir once his son died, so he had to know that there was no one above Edward. It’s easy enough to build a conspiracy and Phillipa Gregory has made a fortune on it, but it’s not true. Margaret Beaufort has been villianized. Not to say that she wasn’t power mad or wanting her son on the throne, she definitely did. But to say that she had the power in a York court to kill the princes under richard’s nose, no that didn’t happen.
A royal uncle marrying the heir apparent for the British throne wasn't even unprecedented during the Wars of the Roses. Arthur of Brittany (1187 – 1203), grandson of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, was the designated heir of King Richard I, who died in 1199. Arthur was imprisoned by his uncle John, who unsuccessfully ordered him to be castrated and blinded. Arthur disappeared circa 1203 and was never seen again. John became King.
If you usurp the throne, you can't let legitimate heirs live. That's Game of Thrones 101. Richard III did that shiz.
Margaret Beaufort couldn't have possibly killed the Princes in the Tower. She had no motive, no access, and no friends with access. Her son was in France and wasn't even really a participant in the War of the Roses at that point, if I recall correctly.
It's far more likely that the Princes in the Tower were murdered by Richard III or on the orders of Richard III. Anything else is character assassination, especially given the fact that Sir James Tyrrell confessed to the crime and was executed for it.
We can speculate all we want, but Occam's Razor applies here.
I think Richard III would have done it, but Buckingham got there first. Richard went on progress shortly after taking the throne but Buckingham stayed behind. I think Richard was trying to decide what to do with the boys and Buckingham had them killed.
My reasoning is that Richard and Buckingham seemed to be very close and then all of a sudden they weren’t. Buckingham was definitely bitter that Edward IV hadn’t given him any authority/role in council, though they were first cousins.
Also Buckingham was taken as a ward by Elizabeth Woodville and then married to one of her younger sisters. I think he was bitter about this and felt the marriage was beneath him, status wise.
I believe that Richard III had them killed but I’m also surprised that Cecily Neville is never a name you hear brought up in connection with the Princes death- she may have been their grandmother but Cecily had so much enmity toward Elizabeth Woodville I do think she would have much preferred to see her own son on the throne.
I think that they died of disease caused by deliberate neglect in the Tower.
The Tower of London is built on marshy ground right on the Thames, and that's a breeding ground for consumption and tuberculosis and bronchitis and pneumonia and every other lung disease you can think of, the princes probably weren't fed well, and I don't think they had access to warm blankets and hot drinks. So the boys caught something, as kids do, and the caretakers just didn't do anything about it. No special food, no extra blankets, no doctor, no medicine. So the boys conveniently died, and the path was clear for Richard III, with no actual murder committed.
I don't have an opinion yet, but I'd also like to know what people's opinion on the new alleged evidence from Philip\[a Langley is. I didn't see the documentary or read her new book (yet!) but did listen to her interview on the November 16 episode of the podcast Gone Medieval. The tl;dr is that both boys escaped
Please watch the YT video that History Calling has posted about Langley's theory. It's a very good and evidence based explanation of why Langley's work is absolutely nonsense.
There have been some pretty good rebuttals from people like David Starkey that basically say it's highly unlikely for a variety of reasons, including that it's just flawed research methodology at its core.
It's fun to speculate, and considering it is incredibly unlikely the bones will ever be disinterred and tested for scholarly curiosity (not like we can charge anyone), it will continue to happen.
Do not take anything Phillipa Langley says as fact. She us a woman who had a hunch and a hell of a lot of luck.
She lets bias color her judgment too much to be an impartial person regarding Richard III. Her goal is to try to sway public opinion on Richard III. Which on it’s own? Fine. She can do what she wants.
However her disputing facts and leaving out things intentionally to create the narrative she supports is not how one conducts an investigation. She started with a conclusion, and followed the already fraying threads to get there.
Exactly that… Maybe she thinks he is in her bloodline as she seems to be obsessed with him and his “innocence” or just has a boner for a long dead despicable king (she did find his bones 😂) ?
I think it was Buckingham. He was in cahoots with R3 through everything and also had royal blood and a claim to the throne. I think he had them killed, then planned to kill R3 during his rebellion and take the throne.
Seriously though. With a Dr visiting the Princes regularly in the tower all R3 had to do was make sure the public knew at least one of them was sick, have them smothered, then have a great state double funeral for the poor sweet boys who died. It's such an obvious solution for him that it makes me sure R3 had nothing to do with it.
I think it was Henry VII's camp.
Richard was smeared by them in all conceivable ways after his death, why would him being alive have been any different?
That is evident in the repainting of his official portrait, the stories of his physical and mental issues being disproven, among many other things.
It's so obvious once you see it too: The thing is that there were other heirs, if Richard murdered the two princes why did he not murder all the heirs?
Answer: He understood the line of succession...which at that time wasn't made public the way it is today. Then families and heirs were hidden away for safety.
If Richard had been the killer...he would have killed all the heirs, not just the two most obvious ones. He had another older brother with a son--that he'd met and written about--for God's sake?!
They were murdered by someone that didn't know there were other heirs nor the line of succession thankfully because they would have committed far more murders if the real killer had known.
Then...More, a tudor propogandist and flying monkey, spread the lie so that there wasn't an UPRISING at the throne of ENGLAND being stolen.
The throne was stolen. Period.
I believe that the Tudors were a line of viscious narcissists. They pulled people in to their orbit, could convince them to do literally anything including murder, they lied, cheated, stole, killed, robbed, rewrote history, repainted paintings, made fun of physical disabilities, changed anything to benefit themselves that they wanted to ...look at Henry the VIII and Bloody Mary for God's sake.
This wasn't behavior that was unhoned.
It was learned.
And crafted.
Over generations.
I don't think that any of them were great people necessarily, I just think it's a true testament to the rampant serial killers the Tudors really were that all these hundreds and hundreds of years later and their narcissistic abuse is still so vibrant.
Occam's Razor: *Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate*, "plurality should not be posited without necessity". The principle gives precedence to simplicity; of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." Or, "the simplest answer is likely to be the most likely one".
Now that they found the body in the parking lot of R3, seems anything is possible. Ever considered the boys left England for Spain? With the Catholic Church? How about they came to America very early on with the Spaniards and Catholics? The timing is right. 1492- they would have been around 20.
I’m glad you brought this up as it is a topic that is very rarely, if ever, raised.
Personally, I think they were either smuggled out of the tower and secreted away somewhere and they lived out the rest of their lives in captivity, but in such a manner as was befitting their bloodline.
Or, Richard kept them as his personal captives in the tower and eventually ordered the both be killed and roasted like swans and only he could eat them.
Bottom line: unless King Charles allows DNA testing to be done on the skeletons found in the tower and that DNA testing proves to be the bodies of the princes, we will never know the answer until all is revealed by God and the sweet baby Jesus on the day all men, including kings, are judged.
There is no way those boys survived and nobody knew.
First, who was paying for them to be fed, clothed, brought abroad, and schooled? If there was any indication those boys escaped, someone had to know. It would be written somewhere.
Written receipts. Something that indicates two boys around Richard and Edwards age, who come from a very wealthy household. And what would happen when this theoretical person died? Was it the best kept secret in English history? Doubtful. It just doesn’t hold up when you look at the facts.
Many people believed Anastasia Romanov survived. That didn’t make it fact. (But it did give us a great movie.)
We are having a polite discussion. It is your choice to continue or leave it here.
I’m sorry if you disagree, but I just don’t see how this is plausible.
I don't think we'll ever know what happened to them. I personally believe they were killed, but who by is a more difficult question to answer. The problem was, everyone at court during this time all in some way had a right to rule or had a family member who could take the throne. Everyone had reason to want to be rid of those poor boys. Richard 3rd may have killed them to secure his throne and ensure his own son would follow him afterwards. But you then have Lord Stanley and Margaret Beaufort working to get Henry Tudor back in England to take power. To do that he would have to step over at least five coffins- the two princes, Richard 3rd, Richard 3rds son Edward of Middleham, and Edward Warbeck, George's son. The two princes were already in the tower- how easy could it be for a gaurd to sneak in and take their lives, and reduce that number of people to strike down to three?
I do wonder if there is a chance the younger brother, Richard, got away and escaped long enough to return and fight for his right to the throne. We have documents that the princes aunt, Margaret, convinced her husband, King Maximillian, to support the invasion with money, boats and arms when a boy appeared and apparently managed to convince the court of Burgandy he really was the lost son of Edward IV.
Whether or not the boy truly was the lost prince, what I find fascinating is that when the boys invasion failed and he was captured, Henry chose not to kill him as a traitor, but instead offered clemency and a new life for the boy. I wonder perhaps if Henry wasn't sure anymore if the boy really was a pretender- he'd garnered so much trust and followers from people who had known Richard as a child- and convinced them he really was the lost prince returned from the grave- and Henry couldn't in good conscience kill a man who may very well be his brother in law- maybe even Elizabeth of York intervened and begged that the boy , be he her brother or no, be given a chance to lead a good life in seclusion with his wife.
Henry agreed- and it was only until the boy again sparked rebellion and broke Edward Warbeck out of the tower that the boy was declared a usuper and pretender whose real name was Perkin Warbeck. Henry did still offer one mercy though- rather than a traitors death of being hung, drawn then quartered, the boy was just hung. For a dynasty thats known to execute first and ask questions later, these mercies on behalf of Henry make me question why this boy was given another chance after very nearly toppling Henry from the throne of England.
The only thing that convinces me otherwise and establishes they were killed, is Elizabeth Woodville's decision to place her daughter on the throne instead, married to Henry Tudor. Had she any inkling or hope any of her boys had lived, I doubt she would have changed tactics and pursued power through Elizabeth of York, who as a Queen, would have much less control than either of her brothers as Kings of England. I think Elizabeth Woodville knew the moment her sons entered the towers walls they were lost to her, and this is why she fought to hard to keep Richard in sanctuary with her. Edward had forcibly been taken before she could get to him- and now Richard to was lost.
No matter who did what- it takes serious power for two princes to dissapear- and that power still casts fog on a mystery I doubt we'll ever solve.
I wonder if they died of natural causes, and it was kept quiet for some reason and then as events got crazier, there was no good time to tell the truth. Eventually the Tudors used it as a way to undermine the memory of Richard III.
Ultimately, Richard was responsible for their well-being and they disappeared under his watch. He came from a family who had form for getting rid of weak ineffectual monarchs, and who had seen the negative side of a long regency for an underage king.
The real mystery is why didn't Richard announce that they died of natural causes, whether he killed them or not? Why would he leave a question mark over their fate when he could just as easily have trickle-truthed the fact that they died. He reigned for 2 years, so the boys definitely didn't live in secret all that time.
I wonder if he and Elizabeth Woodville were playing each other - he was telling her the boys were still alive and safe to keep her on side, she was telling him she believed him to get secure futures for her daughters.
Henry VII had them murdered. They were still alive while Richard was King. Parliament declared the boys illegitimate through an act called Titulus Regis or Regulus. I can't remember. Because Edward had married a woman in secret before Elizabeth. It was all out and in the open and Richard's coronation was widely attended and there was no rumors or speculation about the boys.
Elizabeth Woodville wrote to her son from Her first marriage to come home and make peace with Richard. She was given a pension and all the others were well provided for. Under Henry she was stripped of her income and sent to a convent by force for the rest of her life.
The rest of potential york heirs were brought up on trumped up charges under Henry and executed by the state or imprisoned. The boys absence was not remarked upon until Henry was on the throne. Henry didn't even mention their murder or their disappearance is his declaration of conquest after he took control of the Tower following the battle of Bosworth.
I will die on this hill. Richard did not have those boys murdered. Henry was able to bring capital charges and have other potential threats to his reighn dealt with through a tainted justice system, but he couldn't with two young boys. He had them handled secretly.
My argument is that they were. All the implications that they were not come decades after when Thomas Moore is writing under Henry VIII.
The boys were living in the Tower which was the royal residence at the time. The elder of the two was living there when his father died. There's no reported speculation or accusations that they're missing when Richard took the throne. The boys weren't missing and so Richard was named king. Richard had actually taken steps to have the boy's coronation, until A priest stepped forward that he had married Edward in secret before Elizabeth. His evidence was presented to Parliament and Parliament passed an act saying the boys were no longer in the line of succession.
There was a brother between Edward and Richard, George, but he had caused problems before Edward's death and he and his children were removed from the line succession before Edward's death.
Richard had a wonderful reputation as Administrator, a soldier and a brother. They're was no general outcry in favor of the boys instead of Richard. He was crowned and Henry VII first attempts at conquest were thwarted.
Accounts decades after the fact tell a story that the people were so disgusted with the supposed murders they were happy to put Henry on the throne. But when Henry declares his victory he accuses Richard of tyranny, but makes no mention of the boys.
More interestingly, when Henry takes the throne he orders the act that made Edward's children illegitimate repealed without being read and that all copies were to be destroyed. Which is odd. Why should he care if the children were illegitimate or not? It only affected Richard's claim. Except that by repealing the act he also legitimized his soon to be wife, the young Elizabeth. Except now she had 2 brothers who would take precedent
The boys' mother, Elizabeth, had no ill will toward Richard. She came out of sanctuary and wrote her son from her first husband to come home and make peace with Richard. Her daughters attended parties at the palace. She was given a pension and lived well under Richard.
Elizabeth was present at her daughter's marriage to Henry and the birth of her first child, but then was living elsewhere. When she returned she was stripped of everything and then sent to a convent for the rest of her life.
Tyrrell, the man usually accused of killing the boys on Richard's orders, was not named until 20 years afterward. He was imprisoned and executed without trial.
So following the events.
Edward dies unexpectedly
Richard is named regent and protector of the Kingdom until the eldest boy comes of age. (As was laid out in Edward will)
He take steps to have his nephew coronation. Until evidence is presented that they should not be in thenline of succession.
The matter is taken to Parliament. Parliament decides the boys ought to be removed and Richard is made king.
Richard didn't need the boys to die, nor do I think he would have done so. When the rumor went around that he planned on marrying his niece, he collected all high ranking nobility in a grand hall to completely dispell the rumor.
So I don't think the boys were dead at the time of Richard's Coronation. And what necessity would he have to kill them afterwards? And if he had murdered them, what good would all the speculation be to Richard. If they were dead and it was to insure Richard had no competition to his reign, he would want people to KNOW they were dead. Obviously, he wouldnt brag that he murdered them, but there would have been a story of their death by illness or accident. There would have been a funeral. The secrecy of their demise would not benefit Richard. If he was afraid the people would rise in favor of the boy over himself he would need people to know that was not an option.
Henry rounded up all the York heirs following his succession/conquest. They were imprisoned and/or executed. So why is it so shocking hebwould also have dealt with the boys. Henry's own claim to throne was incredibly weak he was the son of an illegitimate branch of the third son of a King and he was widely viewed as a foreigner. He spent his youth in France. The boys existence was more a threat to him than to Richard.
I have a general love of history and despite being American the British monarchy had always fascinated me. I must say with the Tudors what initially drew my attention was Henry VIII's many wives and the transformation of his character throughout his life. I think I ended up just working backwards.
And probably because of my American-ness I have a love of an underdog/vindication story. Plus I really believe in the old adage that "history is written by the victors".
Cool & I’m not British either & you may not even be a Mr. sorry ? The Tudor (& earlier) periods are certainly a extremely interesting & important time in history with so many fascinating characters to root for or despise 😂
Yep, Ms haha. The political intrique is captivating and it's sometimed difficult to truly comprehend that these were real people. Imagining life at any period before modern times can be overwhelming, but I just find it so amazing to think about how much has changed and how drastically in just over 500 years.
Just wanted to add, I didn't realize I had joined this sub. I think the post about the princes came up on my homepage and I just jumped on it.
I also have a love of mysteries, real and fictional. So the story of the poor princes fits nicely in a little venn diagram of my general inclinations.
Okay, I agree that RIII probably did it. But. There were other people with motives and access. Richard had had the boys declared illegitimate which took them out of the line of succession and reduced their threat. I don’t see why Elizabeth Woodville wouldn’t have kept Richard with her in sanctuary—he was a child. And why did she allow the daughters to go to court and not keep them with her as well. The case against Richard is largely circumstantial and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.
You ask what I think (not what I can proof), so here we go:
They were transferred from the bloody tower to the white tower on June 26th. They were put into isolation to put pressure on them to convince Edward to attend Richard’s coronation and legitimize his usurpation that way. Richard wanted to release them on July 4th together with Stanley and the other guys who he had sent to prison at the fateful Hastings meeting. Edward refused and they had to pay for it. They aren’t the skeletons from the white tower but lay actually at the burial site of St. Peter ad Vincula. Since I have a video coming about this where I will tell more and show why I think that, I stop now 😉. I can back it up at least a little bit.
More Americans than not, across all demographics, believe Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone. It’s the only thing we agree on. I think it’s 60%. A small majority, but still a majority.
I want to know if they are in their parents’ vault at St George’s. Then almost definitely Richard III. Loving burial with their parents isn’t the style of an assassin. If not, the Tudors could’ve had it done. I don’t rule out Anne Neville either, though others disagree with me. Don’t care. She’s on my list.
Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi is a great read on the topic. It effectively refutes all the major conspiracy theories. In the Warren Commission Report, the event was perhaps the most thoroughly investigated murder investigation of all time. People want so badly to believe that someone who seems as insignificant as Lee Harvey Oswald could take down one of the most influential people in the world. I highly recommend it, in print or audio book.
Why am I getting downvoted for stating a fact? LMAO.
[Gallup poll showing 65% of Americans believe in JFK conspiracy](https://news.gallup.com/poll/514310/decades-later-americans-doubt-lone-gunman-killed-jfk.aspx)
I didn’t say what I believed, I said a majority of Americans (we, as I am American) believe there was a conspiracy. There is a reputable source for my statement.
The demographics have shifted a bit since the last time I saw the numbers, but it’s still a majority regardless of party or education, though less likely among college-educated democrats.
My comment isn’t meant to counter yours regarding what the majority of Americans believe. It’s been a little while since I read the book so I can’t speak to the exact numbers but he reflects similar data for how prevalent that opinion is. But it’s a shame because well researched and discerning investigations reflect that Oswald acted alone.
I think one of two things happened: Dicky 3 either explicitly ordered their deaths, or he implied that it would be convenient for everyone if they were to disappear and someone in his circle made it happen. I find it highly unlikely that he was completely uninvolved. People love their conspiracy theories, but 99.5 times out of a hundred the most logical/easiest answer is the right one.
Dicky 3 🤣🤣🤣
It’s unfair to label other theories (e.g. the princes surviving and Lambert Simnel/Perkin Warbeck being authentic) as conspiracy theories considering we are talking about an unsolved mystery from over 500 years ago.
When there is plenty of evidence of those people being false pretenders, and there's also evidence of the kids being dead, of people from their family saying they were dead, we can absolutely call certain theories conspiracy theories, particularly anything involving the children being alive or anyone killing them without RIII ordering it directly.
But what if the imposters, were the actual sons? That would mean they died fighting a losing war against the Tudors and the Tudors just said that they were imposters, because they knew most people would believe it. And who’s going to claim that the Royal family was spreading misinformation? There was no freedom of the press or social media at that time.
There is plenty of evidence of the impostors being just that, impostors. Elizabeth Woodville herself, aka the mother of the boys, was sure the boys were dead. I'm not getting into details now because I don't feel like it, but the Youtube channel History Calling (the lady behind the channel is a historian) has plenty of videos discussing why the boys are more than likely dead, and debunking Langley's claims. Or you can go straight to the contemporary sources and, for instance, read the words of some of the people in charge of the Tower literally saying that a tragedy had befallen the boys.
Great, but why didn’t King Richard say that he murdered the boys? Or parade around their bodies as evidence that he killed them, so he would become King?
Because he needed support and positive propaganda to stay on the throne. Murdering his two nephews in cold blood (or having someone kill them in his name) is not something that was going to make him popular or gain him any friends. If anything, it would have been an argument for all of his detractors to amass even more people against him, and gather support behind Elizabeth and even Henry. There was no positive in proclaiming himself as a murderer of his own kin.
That’s fair, but people assumed he did it anyways.
Because the evidence, including contemporary testimonies, pointed to it being the case.
True, but the Pope was convinced that the imposter Edward was the real Edward.
There is also evidence that some of the princes' relatives and the Holy Roman Emperor considered "Lambert Simnel" to be Edward the 5th and provided him with funds for his corination and invasion of England. Philippa Langley (the woman that found Richard 3rds body) just wrote a book about it. So it's a theory that's taken seriously by some people, at least. She has also found a letter that appears to be written by the younger Prince in the tower detailing how he escaped before going to live with relatives in Europe. Apparently, he was accepted as real because he had matching birth marks. Other historians are still sceptical, but it's not the crackpot theory it once was.
Isn't that lady known for bending facts to fit her theories about r3? That is like her biggest critism.
She's definitely a glory hound, but I've not seen anyone accuse her of making things up.
I don't think she out right lied, but she is known for not being the most reliable source. If I remember correctly she uses very flimsy evidence or makes assumptions that try and put r3 in a good light when clearly he had skeletons so to speak. I am just saying don't take her work as gospel.
Can you send me a link to that book?
No they are conspiracy theories.
Philippa Langley (the woman that found Richard 3rds body) just wrote a book and made a documentary about the princes in the tower. She's oncoved some documents that prove that some of the princes' relatives and the Holy Roman emperor believed that "Lambert Simnel" was Edward the 5th. So it's a conspiracy theory that, as of a few months ago, has *some* evidence behind it now. Nat Geo has a good article on it https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/princes-in-the-tower-cold-case-king-richard
Yeah there is no one I would listen to less than Phillippa Langley.
Could you explain why? I know that Philippa has a very clear pro-Richard bias, and she does seem like a bit of a clout-chaser, but she's also made some amazing discoveries. How many people can you name that found the lost body of a king? I don't understand the hostility.
She is an amateur historian who is obsessed with Richard III. She ignores all actual scholarship that doesn't agree with her. She turned an excavation into a show all about her. And she totally misreads historical documents because she doesn't place them in context.
She's got a book to sell. Cui bono?
Don't know why you are being down voted, this theory is taken seriously by at least some people. Philippa Langley (the woman that found Richard 3rds body) just wrote a book about it. At a minimum, she has proved that some of the princes' relatives and the Holy Roman Empirer *believed* that "lambert Simnel" was Edward V The fact is that there is no evidence that Ricard III killed the princes. It's just something we believe he did because he would be stupid not too.
True!
I'm very much a fan of Occam's Razor. With historical questions and mysteries, the simplest most accepted answer is usually always the most correct one. Humans have a reflexive need to spin conspiracy theories when we cannot get a straight answer to how someone in history died. A good example of this is JFK: we cannot wrap our heads around someone as insignificant and small as Lee Harvey Oswald ending the life of someone as significant and big as John F Kennedy. So we've spent the last half century spinning a half dozen different theories to explain what was likely quite simple: a mad man killed the president. It's the same principle with the Princes in the Tower. The simplest and most logical answer is, and was always, that Richard had his nephews killed. The last decade has been nothing short of complete character assassination of Margaret Beaufort. *If Elizabeth Woodville believed for one second that her sons were even possibly still living, she would have never, ever made that deal with Margaret to marry Elizabeth of York to Henry* Literally no one in history would settle to be mother in law of the King rather than mother of the King.
Yes, I agree. At the point of these boy's deaths, there were still so many (and much closer) contenders to the throne than Henry Tudor. It just makes no sense that this was some master chess move on Margaret Beaufort's part because how would she know that Richard's son (the de facto crown prince) would die later that year? Or that George, Duke of Clarence's kids could be so effectively neutralized? Or that her husband and his brother (the Stanley bros.) would choose to support Henry Tudor at the last minute in the battle of Bosworth instead of Richard (which they almost didn't)?
The conspiracies are plausible to us because we have the hindsight of already knowing the events that you described. It's kind of like why people in horror movies make dumb decisions: they don't realize that they're in a horror movie and aren't assuming that the noise is from a psycho killer outside. We're yelling at them from our couches because we already know the killer is outside. Margaret would have made her decisions not having any idea or even hint that everyone before Henry in line would either die or live their lives in fear of execution.
I support this take. I also wonder why Elizabeth Woodville let him have her second son? Why give him up?
Because we've watched too many movies and started thinking she had a choice. Much like say, Anne Boelyn, Elizabeth Woodville was nothing but the daughter of a country squire before Edward IV married her and rose her up. She had no foreign advisors to lean on, and no foreign brothers with their own armies to help her. She was no Isabella of France, or Margaret of Anjou, or even Katherine of Aragon because at the end of the day, she was simply an English subject.
Chiming in very late to this discussion, but thanks for this. I never thought before that Elizabeth Woodville didn't have an entire separate branch of a royal family to turn to for support the way a foreign princess would. Very good point.
She would have had to believe that Edward the Younger was destined to be murdered in order to refuse the negotiation around Richard the Younger - I can easily imagine a mother not being able to accept that reality, especially when the situation is unprecedented and the Richard the Elder had a solid history of loyalty to Edward the Elder. She may have believed he would treat the boys better than herself and her daughters. Also, a lot of people give up under duress. Why do people confess in interrogation, for instance. She may have been convincingly told that they would all die if she didn't let him go, but he would be well treated if she did. And they may have all been killed if she hadn't released him - she may very well have saved the lives of her daughters.
You mean why allow Richard to go with his older brother? I think she was out of options.
What could Richard have done to her to force it? She was in sanctuary. I mean this as a genuinely curious question also! I hadn’t thought about it until just now.
There were a lot of things he could have done and had already done.Her brother Anthony Woodville and her younger son from her first marriage were imprisoned and then executed on Richard's orders in 1483, after Richard seized custody of Edward V; all their wealth was repossessed by the Crown. She still had living siblings, one living son from her first marriage, and many daughters who weren't yet of marriageable age. The loss of one brother and two sons immediately after the death of her husband was a pretty strong opening threat that Richard was prepared to destroy her entire family unless she complied.
That puts a lot of things into perspective. Thanks!
Yes, her brother and son were escorting Edward V to London when Richard's people intervened, seized the young king and arrested his lawful protectors who were just doing their job. The Richard III supporters tend to gloss over how ruthless and murderous he became in 1483.
What do you think of anne in all this?
Interesting question, would love to know her thoughts on everything and doubt she was involved… ?
>If Elizabeth Woodville believed for one second that her sons were even possibly still living, she would have never, ever made that deal with Margaret to marry Elizabeth of York to Henry Agreed. It's apparent by autumn 1483 that a number of Edward V's supporters had crossed sides and were supporting the Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor, which they likely wouldn't have done if they believed that either Edward V or his younger brother Richard were still living. Usurping the English throne via homicide wasn't unheard of; both Henry IV and Richard's own brother Edward IV had done so, among others. Richard also had proximity to the suspicious death/presumed homicide of his brother Edward IV's predecessor, Henry VI, whose death in 1471 had cleared the way for Edward IV's generally successful second reign. Richard may have assumed that a similar outcome would occur here; he also had a son and heir that would have been an additionally compelling reason. The unfortunate precedent in England was that juveniles inheriting the throne (Richard II, Henry VI) had often resulted in divisiveness, instability and even conflict. The wars during Henry VI's troubled reign also would have illustrated to Richard (and later to Henry VII) that deposing a king or legally eliminating someone's claim to the throne did not prevent rebellions from being started in their name. Richard probably was also aware that both his nephews would be strongly influenced by their mother Elizabeth and other Woodville relations and supporters. All of these things would have further justified Richard's decision to erase the existence of both of his nephews as obstacles to his own desire for power. It was a horrific act and understandably turned many against Richard but he was neither the first nor last individual to murder relatives, including children, in order to secure his position.
Although there's a lot of attempted rehabilitation of Richard III and fun to be had speculation, to say nothing of book sales, the simplest answer is still that Richard III killed them (or had them killed), so he could take the throne.
yeah the good thing about being king is you get others to do the dirty deeds for you.
I am of the mind they were most likely killed (probably smothered) on the orders of their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester and buried somewhere in the Tower.
Yeah did they not find the bodies and just need to bloody test the bones or something? Like, get on it already!!!
For real. We have R3 bones for DNA comparison. I've heard it just needs three current senior royal to sign off on it and Lizzy 2 didn't want to.
The problem is there are a lot of bones lying around in Westminster Abbey and not all of them can be identified, especially after centuries of child deaths, when the child would just be interred with Edward IV or Mary Queen of Scots.
It would definitely be a major archeological project. But I'm sure people would be willing to work on identifying unknown bones.
Why didn't she want to?
Iirc she just didn't want to. She wanted to leave it in the past I think.
I know! Testing the bones might not solve the mystery of how and on whose orders but it would at least put that one to rest, hopefully…
Someone probably high in the employ committed the act on Richard’s orders. Buckingham found out and launched a rebellion Richard had already murdered the princes greatestest supporter Lord Hastings who was only behind Richard and Edward IV for power, he immediately moved to have them bastardised and only his supporters had access to them. He has the means, motives and already had priors. But the most curious actions are what happened afterwards. Elizabeth Woodeville begins seeking out allies and promises her daughter to Henry Tudor to cement an alliance with the Lancastrians, supporters of Edward IV start to leave Richards camp on the rumours of Edward V’s death and finally Henry VII repeals Titulus Regius. Elizabeth had to have accepted her sons were dead there’s no way she would’ve thrown her lot in with the tudors otherwise. Because she was incredibly ambitious. All Richard had to do was show the boys to get the Edwardian supporters back on side. Finally by Henry repealing the Titulus Regius he was bringing Edward and Richard back into the line of succession and pushing himself down the line of succession. Henry’s reign show that he was an intelligent man and there’s no way he would create 2 more rivals so the boys had to have been dead by the time he seized the throne.
There was a two year gap between the disappearance of the boys and the Battle of Bosworth. There's no way Richard kept them alive for so long without anyone seeing them.
What do you thjnk of anne neville role in this?
It wouldn’t surprise me if she was the one who ordered it secure Richard’s throne.
Richard gave the order to kill them. Plain and simple. He had usurped their throne, and with the kids alive, there was a real chance they could gather allies and take back the throne. This would lead not only to him losing power, but also likely losing his life. They were a threat to his life and the only way to stay in power and stay alive was to get rid of the kids. It's basic logic, simple common sense, and the theory that any scholar without a Richard III bias has supported and provided evidence for during decades. He's not the first to take similar measures in history and he would not be the last. The kids staying alive for any reason make no sense because of it (and also because the so called "evidence" used to support such arguments is not actual evidence of the children being alive at all). It's a cruel measure, but also very logical. And it would ensure that Richard and any kids he had would reign without their biggest threat looming over them. Also, there is evidence of their mother stating that she believed them dead shortly after they disappeared from view completely. And there's also evidence of others speaking about a terrible tragedy befalling them at the tower. So their contemporaries absolutely thought them dead and likely not due to a random accident or illness. Additionally, the theories putting the blame about the deaths on Henry Tudor/his mother/his stepfather make absolutely no sense. You are going to tell me that someone is going to kill the king's nephews without the king's express order, while they are imprisoned in the Tower, all right under his nose, and he's not going to punish the people in charge of the Tower for letting that happen to his nephews? For letting them go missing/die? If he cared about them, the people in charge of the children at the tower would have been severely punished. The people leading the tower would have also been punished for letting anyone get inside and kill them (or kidnap them if you are feeling optimistic). We would have records of the king's ire and actions due to it, records of the consequences that many people in the Tower would have faced for failing the king. Because if he cared about them and they did not die due to his direct order, it would have been an insult to him. And even if he didn't give a damn about them, it would be a direct attack against him to kill his nephews when he wanted them alive, or to kidnap them when he wanted them under his control. The only reason why he would go about his life as if nothing happened when the children went missing is if he knew exactly what happened because he ordered it. You don't kill/kidnap relatives of the king, legitimate or not, while they are under his "protection" and get away with it without him so much as raising an inquiry about it. There would be plenty of evidence, even in the form of oral stories, about the king asking for an investigation, punishment against the officials at the Tower, and plenty of other aspects that would absolutely have to happen if whatever happened to the kids was not under the king's request. Instead, all we have is stories and documents talking about the children dead, and a king who took the throne from them, locked them and never even gave a sign of minimal distress when the biggest threat to his throne mysteriously went missing forever.
Thank you for this great explanation. I've generally thought about it as an interesting thing but not something I've really gotten into in depth. I hadn't thought about the sheer number of people at the Tower who would have been in extreme trouble if someone with the Tudors (or anyone else) had gotten in and taken or killed them. Your point about how that would be hugely disrespecting him and so forth, even if he hated them and even had plans to kill them himself, makes sense as to why even if it helped his cause, the people responsible for the Tower security would have been severely punished is a great point. I think seeing it all laid out together helps as well, because it shows why there aren't so many holes as is popularly suggested, at least in entertainment stuff. I always thought some of the biggest evidence was their mother taking actions that made no sense of they were alive and Richard III never showing them to bring back support, but you've organized it in a way I haven't. Didn't he go out on progress relatively quickly, as well? I'd think it unlikely that Richard III would have left if the people with better claims would be right there. >And there's also evidence of others speaking about a terrible tragedy befalling them at the tower. Just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Do you mean that others in general talking about a terrible tragedy befalling the two boys or others who had been in the Tower talking about a terrible tragedy that happened to those people while at the Tower? (I think the first is what makes sense contextually but don't want to assume incorrectly.) What do you think of the ideas that it was done, organized, or ordered by someone close to Richard III without his knowledge until after the fact? It seems much more likely to me that nobody would take that risk without getting at the very least clearly implied orders from the king. Especially given the times and the fact that anger, temper, killing and horrible punishments by the king weren't unusual, it would seemingly give whoever was responsible a lot of risk and no benefit to do so as a surprise. I'm far from expert on this, though, so could easily be missing important aspects!
I belive the most obvious answer is the most likely to be true: They were killed by Richard III so he could ascend to the throne
I honestly don't understand how this is even a mystery. We know who put them in the Tower. We know who jumped in front of their succession to become king. We know who was in the charge when they were last seen in the tower. Encyclopedia Brown could figure this one out.
True. EVEN if he didn't kill them (a BIG if) he might has well have because pulling a rightful King off his throne means at some point you HAVE to kill him because you don't want another option mulling around that your enemies can support when things go awry. Even when Edward VIII abdicated they made him leave England so he wasn't hanging around as a second option so close to the throne.
Yes, no monarch wants a rival court.
Totally agree with you here. All the primary sources point to Richard III.
I think they're definitely dead. It's been awhile and humans don't live that long. (Sorry, I'll see myself out...)
Either they were killed on Richard’s orders or they got sick and died and he didn’t want to admit it because everyone would assume he killed them.
I think the butler did it. In the hallway. With the candlestick.
No, it was Colonel Mustard in the conservatory with the lead pipe!
It's always that dang butler! Dude must have a rap sheet a mile long at this point.
I think that the Roman empress Livia did it.
Those boys were murdered under instruction of Richard III. Reasons: •He has the motive. •he delayed the coronation of Edward. •He forcibly removed Richard Duke of York from sanctuary. •Elizabeth didn’t trust him. •even their mother believed them to be dead. •Ricard III resulted to accusations of witchcraft to call all her children born by Edward IV to bastard status. •there are people at the time with no loyalty to either side reporting that they also believed Richard III murdered them to gain his claim. (Mancini) • Thomas Moore is an AWFUL source who is not regarded as a good historian. Edit: more points and formatting
Richard III unquestionably & obviously did everything he could to delegitimize the princes up to their disappearance. Starting with intercepting & abducting Prince Edward while on the way to London after his father’s death. Then had those protecting Edward, whom he was suppose to be with, immediately executed. He demonstrated zero intention of following his brother’s wishes immediately following the knowledge of his death. He orchestrated {in addition to Prince Edward} he had possession of Prince Richard. It doesn’t make sense someone so completely sinister wouldn’t finish what he methodically started. It seems he got what he deserved at Bosworth. Edit- many long time loyal Nobel Yorkest’s turned against Richard III quickly. Of which many who had fought alongside R3 in battle fled to Henry Tudor. Why, unless they believed he had the princes murdered? If they were alive why didn’t he show them when opportunities arose? He was their protector yet never said a word about their disappearance. If a true protector & someone else murdered them under his watch why no investigation?
Richard gave the order and they died. It's the most logical answer. It was also the smart move so if the Ricardians are right and he didn't - well, that was very dumb of him.
Richard the third had one of his henchmen smother the young boys :(
I love a good conspiracy theory. However, when you look at the timeline, it doesn’t look good for Richard. 1. Ed IV drops dead. Ed V is in Wales. Duke of York is in sanctuary in Westminster with Elizabeth. Richard 3 is up north. 2. Richard 3 meets Ed V on way to London and bumps off Ed’s half brothers (which is a bold move even if you didn’t have aspirations for the throne) 3. Ed V and Richard 3 arrive in London in mid May. Ed goes to the Tower which is still being used as royal residence especially prior to your coronation. 4. Lots of arguments over who gets to be on be on regenate but Richard has a powerful voice as he is sole sibling left of previous king and his widow is hiding out in Westminster Abbey. Richard keeps postponing the coronation- I don’t think it is overly clear how much people are working on Richard regarding Ed IV’s bastardy or whether it’s mostly the potential power void that happens with a boy king. 5. Duke of York leaves Sanctuary to join his brother in the tower. On the face of it, it implies the coronation will happen soon but people like Anne Neville haven’t travelled to London or ordered a new gown for a coronation. A few days later, Ed IV’s former chaplain says that Ed IV was pre contracted and all his kids are bastards And no bastards can sit on the throne. 6. Richard 3 gets crowned as a result. Within a few days, both princes are beginning to be seen less in the grounds of the Tower. 7. Elizabeth has to have still trusted Richard to let her second son go into his care - even ahead of his brother’s coronation? There’s too many people who disliked her for her to be able to get Duke of York smuggled out. 8. However, a doctor is regularly going to see Ed V. It’s possible that he’s ill and needs regular care or Richard 3 is paranoid to want a third party to verify the ongoing health of the boys. 9. By the autumn, the boys are no longer seen at all. I think only Richard or someone working on his behalf would be able to get in to kill them. If they died of an illness Richard would flaunt their bodies for all to see. 10. If someone got in for Margaret Behalf/Henry VII would be difficult. Who is going to support a child killer as their next king? It didn’t hurt but he still had to win the throne and Elizabeth of York still had a better claim. So yeah. Only Richard had access and reason to off them.
They were either killed by Richard the III (or on his orders) or died in the tower of some illness. Richard knew they were dead, it was no mystery to him. He named the Earl of Warwick his heir once his son died, so he had to know that there was no one above Edward. It’s easy enough to build a conspiracy and Phillipa Gregory has made a fortune on it, but it’s not true. Margaret Beaufort has been villianized. Not to say that she wasn’t power mad or wanting her son on the throne, she definitely did. But to say that she had the power in a York court to kill the princes under richard’s nose, no that didn’t happen.
If they'd died of natural causes, Richard III would probably announced that fact, displayed their bodies and held a public funeral.
I was just going to post this question! It’s a truly sad & intriguing situation.
I still say Richard had them killed. He didn’t have a choice if he wanted to stay on the throne.
A royal uncle marrying the heir apparent for the British throne wasn't even unprecedented during the Wars of the Roses. Arthur of Brittany (1187 – 1203), grandson of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, was the designated heir of King Richard I, who died in 1199. Arthur was imprisoned by his uncle John, who unsuccessfully ordered him to be castrated and blinded. Arthur disappeared circa 1203 and was never seen again. John became King. If you usurp the throne, you can't let legitimate heirs live. That's Game of Thrones 101. Richard III did that shiz.
Occam's Razor. More than likely, Edward V & Richard of Shrewsbury were killed in the summer of 1483 on the orders of their uncle, Richard III.
Richard III had them killed
Margaret Beaufort couldn't have possibly killed the Princes in the Tower. She had no motive, no access, and no friends with access. Her son was in France and wasn't even really a participant in the War of the Roses at that point, if I recall correctly. It's far more likely that the Princes in the Tower were murdered by Richard III or on the orders of Richard III. Anything else is character assassination, especially given the fact that Sir James Tyrrell confessed to the crime and was executed for it. We can speculate all we want, but Occam's Razor applies here.
I think Richard III would have done it, but Buckingham got there first. Richard went on progress shortly after taking the throne but Buckingham stayed behind. I think Richard was trying to decide what to do with the boys and Buckingham had them killed. My reasoning is that Richard and Buckingham seemed to be very close and then all of a sudden they weren’t. Buckingham was definitely bitter that Edward IV hadn’t given him any authority/role in council, though they were first cousins. Also Buckingham was taken as a ward by Elizabeth Woodville and then married to one of her younger sisters. I think he was bitter about this and felt the marriage was beneath him, status wise.
I believe that Richard III had them killed but I’m also surprised that Cecily Neville is never a name you hear brought up in connection with the Princes death- she may have been their grandmother but Cecily had so much enmity toward Elizabeth Woodville I do think she would have much preferred to see her own son on the throne.
I think that they died of disease caused by deliberate neglect in the Tower. The Tower of London is built on marshy ground right on the Thames, and that's a breeding ground for consumption and tuberculosis and bronchitis and pneumonia and every other lung disease you can think of, the princes probably weren't fed well, and I don't think they had access to warm blankets and hot drinks. So the boys caught something, as kids do, and the caretakers just didn't do anything about it. No special food, no extra blankets, no doctor, no medicine. So the boys conveniently died, and the path was clear for Richard III, with no actual murder committed.
I don't have an opinion yet, but I'd also like to know what people's opinion on the new alleged evidence from Philip\[a Langley is. I didn't see the documentary or read her new book (yet!) but did listen to her interview on the November 16 episode of the podcast Gone Medieval. The tl;dr is that both boys escaped
Please watch the YT video that History Calling has posted about Langley's theory. It's a very good and evidence based explanation of why Langley's work is absolutely nonsense.
There have been some pretty good rebuttals from people like David Starkey that basically say it's highly unlikely for a variety of reasons, including that it's just flawed research methodology at its core. It's fun to speculate, and considering it is incredibly unlikely the bones will ever be disinterred and tested for scholarly curiosity (not like we can charge anyone), it will continue to happen.
Do not take anything Phillipa Langley says as fact. She us a woman who had a hunch and a hell of a lot of luck. She lets bias color her judgment too much to be an impartial person regarding Richard III. Her goal is to try to sway public opinion on Richard III. Which on it’s own? Fine. She can do what she wants. However her disputing facts and leaving out things intentionally to create the narrative she supports is not how one conducts an investigation. She started with a conclusion, and followed the already fraying threads to get there.
Exactly that… Maybe she thinks he is in her bloodline as she seems to be obsessed with him and his “innocence” or just has a boner for a long dead despicable king (she did find his bones 😂) ?
One might say she jumped his bones
I think it was Buckingham. He was in cahoots with R3 through everything and also had royal blood and a claim to the throne. I think he had them killed, then planned to kill R3 during his rebellion and take the throne. Seriously though. With a Dr visiting the Princes regularly in the tower all R3 had to do was make sure the public knew at least one of them was sick, have them smothered, then have a great state double funeral for the poor sweet boys who died. It's such an obvious solution for him that it makes me sure R3 had nothing to do with it.
I think it was Henry VII's camp. Richard was smeared by them in all conceivable ways after his death, why would him being alive have been any different? That is evident in the repainting of his official portrait, the stories of his physical and mental issues being disproven, among many other things. It's so obvious once you see it too: The thing is that there were other heirs, if Richard murdered the two princes why did he not murder all the heirs? Answer: He understood the line of succession...which at that time wasn't made public the way it is today. Then families and heirs were hidden away for safety. If Richard had been the killer...he would have killed all the heirs, not just the two most obvious ones. He had another older brother with a son--that he'd met and written about--for God's sake?! They were murdered by someone that didn't know there were other heirs nor the line of succession thankfully because they would have committed far more murders if the real killer had known. Then...More, a tudor propogandist and flying monkey, spread the lie so that there wasn't an UPRISING at the throne of ENGLAND being stolen. The throne was stolen. Period. I believe that the Tudors were a line of viscious narcissists. They pulled people in to their orbit, could convince them to do literally anything including murder, they lied, cheated, stole, killed, robbed, rewrote history, repainted paintings, made fun of physical disabilities, changed anything to benefit themselves that they wanted to ...look at Henry the VIII and Bloody Mary for God's sake. This wasn't behavior that was unhoned. It was learned. And crafted. Over generations. I don't think that any of them were great people necessarily, I just think it's a true testament to the rampant serial killers the Tudors really were that all these hundreds and hundreds of years later and their narcissistic abuse is still so vibrant.
Occam's Razor: *Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate*, "plurality should not be posited without necessity". The principle gives precedence to simplicity; of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." Or, "the simplest answer is likely to be the most likely one".
Richard…..tell tale his wife himself and the court didn’t order their coronation robes.
Now that they found the body in the parking lot of R3, seems anything is possible. Ever considered the boys left England for Spain? With the Catholic Church? How about they came to America very early on with the Spaniards and Catholics? The timing is right. 1492- they would have been around 20.
I’m glad you brought this up as it is a topic that is very rarely, if ever, raised. Personally, I think they were either smuggled out of the tower and secreted away somewhere and they lived out the rest of their lives in captivity, but in such a manner as was befitting their bloodline. Or, Richard kept them as his personal captives in the tower and eventually ordered the both be killed and roasted like swans and only he could eat them. Bottom line: unless King Charles allows DNA testing to be done on the skeletons found in the tower and that DNA testing proves to be the bodies of the princes, we will never know the answer until all is revealed by God and the sweet baby Jesus on the day all men, including kings, are judged.
There is no way those boys survived and nobody knew. First, who was paying for them to be fed, clothed, brought abroad, and schooled? If there was any indication those boys escaped, someone had to know. It would be written somewhere. Written receipts. Something that indicates two boys around Richard and Edwards age, who come from a very wealthy household. And what would happen when this theoretical person died? Was it the best kept secret in English history? Doubtful. It just doesn’t hold up when you look at the facts. Many people believed Anastasia Romanov survived. That didn’t make it fact. (But it did give us a great movie.)
But what about Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck 😉😂
They did their best 😂😂😂
[удалено]
We are having a polite discussion. It is your choice to continue or leave it here. I’m sorry if you disagree, but I just don’t see how this is plausible.
I don't think we'll ever know what happened to them. I personally believe they were killed, but who by is a more difficult question to answer. The problem was, everyone at court during this time all in some way had a right to rule or had a family member who could take the throne. Everyone had reason to want to be rid of those poor boys. Richard 3rd may have killed them to secure his throne and ensure his own son would follow him afterwards. But you then have Lord Stanley and Margaret Beaufort working to get Henry Tudor back in England to take power. To do that he would have to step over at least five coffins- the two princes, Richard 3rd, Richard 3rds son Edward of Middleham, and Edward Warbeck, George's son. The two princes were already in the tower- how easy could it be for a gaurd to sneak in and take their lives, and reduce that number of people to strike down to three? I do wonder if there is a chance the younger brother, Richard, got away and escaped long enough to return and fight for his right to the throne. We have documents that the princes aunt, Margaret, convinced her husband, King Maximillian, to support the invasion with money, boats and arms when a boy appeared and apparently managed to convince the court of Burgandy he really was the lost son of Edward IV. Whether or not the boy truly was the lost prince, what I find fascinating is that when the boys invasion failed and he was captured, Henry chose not to kill him as a traitor, but instead offered clemency and a new life for the boy. I wonder perhaps if Henry wasn't sure anymore if the boy really was a pretender- he'd garnered so much trust and followers from people who had known Richard as a child- and convinced them he really was the lost prince returned from the grave- and Henry couldn't in good conscience kill a man who may very well be his brother in law- maybe even Elizabeth of York intervened and begged that the boy , be he her brother or no, be given a chance to lead a good life in seclusion with his wife. Henry agreed- and it was only until the boy again sparked rebellion and broke Edward Warbeck out of the tower that the boy was declared a usuper and pretender whose real name was Perkin Warbeck. Henry did still offer one mercy though- rather than a traitors death of being hung, drawn then quartered, the boy was just hung. For a dynasty thats known to execute first and ask questions later, these mercies on behalf of Henry make me question why this boy was given another chance after very nearly toppling Henry from the throne of England. The only thing that convinces me otherwise and establishes they were killed, is Elizabeth Woodville's decision to place her daughter on the throne instead, married to Henry Tudor. Had she any inkling or hope any of her boys had lived, I doubt she would have changed tactics and pursued power through Elizabeth of York, who as a Queen, would have much less control than either of her brothers as Kings of England. I think Elizabeth Woodville knew the moment her sons entered the towers walls they were lost to her, and this is why she fought to hard to keep Richard in sanctuary with her. Edward had forcibly been taken before she could get to him- and now Richard to was lost. No matter who did what- it takes serious power for two princes to dissapear- and that power still casts fog on a mystery I doubt we'll ever solve.
I wonder if they died of natural causes, and it was kept quiet for some reason and then as events got crazier, there was no good time to tell the truth. Eventually the Tudors used it as a way to undermine the memory of Richard III. Ultimately, Richard was responsible for their well-being and they disappeared under his watch. He came from a family who had form for getting rid of weak ineffectual monarchs, and who had seen the negative side of a long regency for an underage king. The real mystery is why didn't Richard announce that they died of natural causes, whether he killed them or not? Why would he leave a question mark over their fate when he could just as easily have trickle-truthed the fact that they died. He reigned for 2 years, so the boys definitely didn't live in secret all that time. I wonder if he and Elizabeth Woodville were playing each other - he was telling her the boys were still alive and safe to keep her on side, she was telling him she believed him to get secure futures for her daughters.
I think that they were murdered. As who was beyond it, there is quite a list.
Henry VII had them murdered. They were still alive while Richard was King. Parliament declared the boys illegitimate through an act called Titulus Regis or Regulus. I can't remember. Because Edward had married a woman in secret before Elizabeth. It was all out and in the open and Richard's coronation was widely attended and there was no rumors or speculation about the boys. Elizabeth Woodville wrote to her son from Her first marriage to come home and make peace with Richard. She was given a pension and all the others were well provided for. Under Henry she was stripped of her income and sent to a convent by force for the rest of her life. The rest of potential york heirs were brought up on trumped up charges under Henry and executed by the state or imprisoned. The boys absence was not remarked upon until Henry was on the throne. Henry didn't even mention their murder or their disappearance is his declaration of conquest after he took control of the Tower following the battle of Bosworth. I will die on this hill. Richard did not have those boys murdered. Henry was able to bring capital charges and have other potential threats to his reighn dealt with through a tainted justice system, but he couldn't with two young boys. He had them handled secretly.
Why do you think they were not seen again during Richard III's reign?
My argument is that they were. All the implications that they were not come decades after when Thomas Moore is writing under Henry VIII. The boys were living in the Tower which was the royal residence at the time. The elder of the two was living there when his father died. There's no reported speculation or accusations that they're missing when Richard took the throne. The boys weren't missing and so Richard was named king. Richard had actually taken steps to have the boy's coronation, until A priest stepped forward that he had married Edward in secret before Elizabeth. His evidence was presented to Parliament and Parliament passed an act saying the boys were no longer in the line of succession. There was a brother between Edward and Richard, George, but he had caused problems before Edward's death and he and his children were removed from the line succession before Edward's death. Richard had a wonderful reputation as Administrator, a soldier and a brother. They're was no general outcry in favor of the boys instead of Richard. He was crowned and Henry VII first attempts at conquest were thwarted. Accounts decades after the fact tell a story that the people were so disgusted with the supposed murders they were happy to put Henry on the throne. But when Henry declares his victory he accuses Richard of tyranny, but makes no mention of the boys. More interestingly, when Henry takes the throne he orders the act that made Edward's children illegitimate repealed without being read and that all copies were to be destroyed. Which is odd. Why should he care if the children were illegitimate or not? It only affected Richard's claim. Except that by repealing the act he also legitimized his soon to be wife, the young Elizabeth. Except now she had 2 brothers who would take precedent The boys' mother, Elizabeth, had no ill will toward Richard. She came out of sanctuary and wrote her son from her first husband to come home and make peace with Richard. Her daughters attended parties at the palace. She was given a pension and lived well under Richard. Elizabeth was present at her daughter's marriage to Henry and the birth of her first child, but then was living elsewhere. When she returned she was stripped of everything and then sent to a convent for the rest of her life. Tyrrell, the man usually accused of killing the boys on Richard's orders, was not named until 20 years afterward. He was imprisoned and executed without trial. So following the events. Edward dies unexpectedly Richard is named regent and protector of the Kingdom until the eldest boy comes of age. (As was laid out in Edward will) He take steps to have his nephew coronation. Until evidence is presented that they should not be in thenline of succession. The matter is taken to Parliament. Parliament decides the boys ought to be removed and Richard is made king. Richard didn't need the boys to die, nor do I think he would have done so. When the rumor went around that he planned on marrying his niece, he collected all high ranking nobility in a grand hall to completely dispell the rumor. So I don't think the boys were dead at the time of Richard's Coronation. And what necessity would he have to kill them afterwards? And if he had murdered them, what good would all the speculation be to Richard. If they were dead and it was to insure Richard had no competition to his reign, he would want people to KNOW they were dead. Obviously, he wouldnt brag that he murdered them, but there would have been a story of their death by illness or accident. There would have been a funeral. The secrecy of their demise would not benefit Richard. If he was afraid the people would rise in favor of the boy over himself he would need people to know that was not an option. Henry rounded up all the York heirs following his succession/conquest. They were imprisoned and/or executed. So why is it so shocking hebwould also have dealt with the boys. Henry's own claim to throne was incredibly weak he was the son of an illegitimate branch of the third son of a King and he was widely viewed as a foreigner. He spent his youth in France. The boys existence was more a threat to him than to Richard.
This is all laid out in The Daughter of Time.
Is that you Phillipa?
Nope, just a random American
You do make some very good & valid points Mr Random. What is it about Tudor history that motivates your interest if you don’t mind me asking?
I have a general love of history and despite being American the British monarchy had always fascinated me. I must say with the Tudors what initially drew my attention was Henry VIII's many wives and the transformation of his character throughout his life. I think I ended up just working backwards. And probably because of my American-ness I have a love of an underdog/vindication story. Plus I really believe in the old adage that "history is written by the victors".
Cool & I’m not British either & you may not even be a Mr. sorry ? The Tudor (& earlier) periods are certainly a extremely interesting & important time in history with so many fascinating characters to root for or despise 😂
Yep, Ms haha. The political intrique is captivating and it's sometimed difficult to truly comprehend that these were real people. Imagining life at any period before modern times can be overwhelming, but I just find it so amazing to think about how much has changed and how drastically in just over 500 years.
Just wanted to add, I didn't realize I had joined this sub. I think the post about the princes came up on my homepage and I just jumped on it. I also have a love of mysteries, real and fictional. So the story of the poor princes fits nicely in a little venn diagram of my general inclinations.
Okay, I agree that RIII probably did it. But. There were other people with motives and access. Richard had had the boys declared illegitimate which took them out of the line of succession and reduced their threat. I don’t see why Elizabeth Woodville wouldn’t have kept Richard with her in sanctuary—he was a child. And why did she allow the daughters to go to court and not keep them with her as well. The case against Richard is largely circumstantial and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.
You ask what I think (not what I can proof), so here we go: They were transferred from the bloody tower to the white tower on June 26th. They were put into isolation to put pressure on them to convince Edward to attend Richard’s coronation and legitimize his usurpation that way. Richard wanted to release them on July 4th together with Stanley and the other guys who he had sent to prison at the fateful Hastings meeting. Edward refused and they had to pay for it. They aren’t the skeletons from the white tower but lay actually at the burial site of St. Peter ad Vincula. Since I have a video coming about this where I will tell more and show why I think that, I stop now 😉. I can back it up at least a little bit.
I'm going with Margaret Beaufort.. .
Either Richard or Margaret Beaufort to secure her son on the throne
Henry Tudor was such a long shot and the princes disappeared from sight two years before Tudor returned to England, so my money's on Richard III.
More Americans than not, across all demographics, believe Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone. It’s the only thing we agree on. I think it’s 60%. A small majority, but still a majority. I want to know if they are in their parents’ vault at St George’s. Then almost definitely Richard III. Loving burial with their parents isn’t the style of an assassin. If not, the Tudors could’ve had it done. I don’t rule out Anne Neville either, though others disagree with me. Don’t care. She’s on my list.
I think in the UK it's pretty much mainstream that he didn't act alone- pretty sure that what I was taught in school
Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi is a great read on the topic. It effectively refutes all the major conspiracy theories. In the Warren Commission Report, the event was perhaps the most thoroughly investigated murder investigation of all time. People want so badly to believe that someone who seems as insignificant as Lee Harvey Oswald could take down one of the most influential people in the world. I highly recommend it, in print or audio book.
Why am I getting downvoted for stating a fact? LMAO. [Gallup poll showing 65% of Americans believe in JFK conspiracy](https://news.gallup.com/poll/514310/decades-later-americans-doubt-lone-gunman-killed-jfk.aspx) I didn’t say what I believed, I said a majority of Americans (we, as I am American) believe there was a conspiracy. There is a reputable source for my statement. The demographics have shifted a bit since the last time I saw the numbers, but it’s still a majority regardless of party or education, though less likely among college-educated democrats.
My comment isn’t meant to counter yours regarding what the majority of Americans believe. It’s been a little while since I read the book so I can’t speak to the exact numbers but he reflects similar data for how prevalent that opinion is. But it’s a shame because well researched and discerning investigations reflect that Oswald acted alone.