Who do you think did in the princes in the tower?

EC2 · Post by **EC2** » Thu January 15th, 2009, 10:22 pm

Very interesting details Boswell.
I've always believed Henry VII innocent but were you to ask me why, I'd say it's a gut feeling or intuition, which is useful for a novelist, but doesn't really hack it in informed debate!

LoveHistory · Post by **LoveHistory** » Thu January 15th, 2009, 10:56 pm

Very interesting. However, what people thought might have happened doesn't necessarily have anything in common what what actually happened (which, of course, we don't know).

But I would like to defend my theory as not involving desert islands or Elvis. Socks I'm ok with.

Is it possible that Richard believed the boys to be in danger from Henry Tudor and the like and thus had them spirited away to some safe spot until the time came when they would no longer need protection?

And why is it that the only reason noblemen would dislike Richard III would be if he had committed heinous crimes? Wasn't it justification enough if they knew he would never trust them and would do everything in his power to make their lives miserable? Ingratiating oneself with/to royalty is not an easy job. Men have risked lives and fortunes to grasp at straws before, and will do so again, as long as there are men and fortunes.

Isn't it also possible that the princes died of natural causes, but by the time it happened Richard III had already been accused of their murder? Producing the bodies would have done him no good then.

And is it not possible that they were murdered and the true culprits made a point of having it look like Richard was involved?

And is it not also possible that the whole controversy is actually the result of a game of hide-and-seek gone terribly, terribly awry? In which case...man those kids are good at hiding!

Libby · Post by **Libby** » Thu January 15th, 2009, 11:12 pm

[quote=""boswellbaxter""]There was an attempt to free the boys from the Tower within weeks of Richard's coronation--four men were hung for their involvement. [/quote]

Was the attempt to free them so that opposition to the king could be rallied around them? if so that is called treason. And the punishment for treason is death. (still is).

Dominic Mancini, an Italian observer with no ax to grind on behalf of the Tudors, wrote in 1483 that he saw men crying in the street at the mention of Edward V. Clearly, they wouldn't have been crying if they thought the boys were frolicking up in Yorkshire somewhere.

Do you know how much has been written about the death of Diana, late princess of Wales and how many people believe she was murdered. They cry in the streets about that. It doesn't make it true.[/quote]

The autumn 1483 uprising known as "Buckingham's rebellion" (a misnomer, because Buckingham was involved rather late in the game) is generally held to have begun as an attempt to restore Edward V to the throne and later, when it was rumored that the boys were dead, to put someone else on the throne (either Henry Tudor or, some think, Buckingham himself). Most of the men involved in the rebellion were men who had been loyal to Edward IV and to the Yorkist cause. They risked their lives, their property, and the futures of their loved ones by rebelling--it would have been a lot safer and easier for them to try to ingratiate themselves with Richard III. That they didn't, but chose instead to gamble on an unknown quantity like Henry Tudor, surely suggests that they believed Richard III had committed crimes so serious that they could not stomach him as their king.

This rebellion was probably 'masterminded' by Lord Stanley and his wife. They had many reasons to hate Richard and did not want him to be king. It does not prove he murdered his nephews. He was mostly guilty of being seen as a northerner and a bit of a 'spoilsport' and of moving men he could trust into positions of authority.[/quote]

Well before Henry Tudor's invasion in 1485, there were rumors circulating abroad that Richard III had killed his nephews.

Rumours circulate that the duke of Edinburgh ordered the death of Diana, princess of Wales. It doesn't change the fact that it is utter nonsense.

None of this proves that the boys were murdered or that Richard III was their killer, of course, but it does indicate that their disappearance was questioned at the time, and deplored.

Rosemary Horrox's Richard III: A Study in Service and Louise Gill's Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion are excellent accounts of the period after Richard's coronation and of the unrest during this time.

Thanks - I've read them both, plus other accounts. My conclusions may not be the same as yours, but it makes for good debate.

Volgadon · Post by **Volgadon** » Fri January 16th, 2009, 9:28 am

[quote=""LoveHistory""]Is it possible that Richard believed the boys to be in danger from Henry Tudor and the like and thus had them spirited away to some safe spot until the time came when they would no longer need protection?[/quote]

That makes no sense, the tower was secure enough!!!

LoveHistory · Post by **LoveHistory** » Fri January 16th, 2009, 6:21 pm

[quote=""Volgadon""]That makes no sense, the tower was secure enough!!![/quote]

Ah, but my goal is not to make sense. Imagine that Henry Tudor defeats Richard (not really a stretch there) and then the boys in the tower are at his mercy.

donroc · Post by **donroc** » Fri January 16th, 2009, 6:45 pm

Adding up the Tudor body count of York and Lancaster heirs over subsequent decades after Henry became the Seventh, I lean towards anyone but Richard as being the murderer.

Now if Oliver Stone wants to do a conspiracy film showing how the Duke of E arranged Diana's murder, it may become the myth that will be accepted as historical fact.

Volgadon · Post by **Volgadon** » Fri January 16th, 2009, 8:15 pm

[quote=""LoveHistory""]Ah, but my goal is not to make sense. Imagine that Henry Tudor defeats Richard (not really a stretch there) and then the boys in the tower are at his mercy.[/quote]

So they would be at his mercy anywhere in that case.

Christina · Post by **Christina** » Sat January 17th, 2009, 12:06 am

Well...here in Yorkshire, we generally believe that 'our' Richard was the innocent and it was nasty Henry who did the murky murder. Richard's life was re-written by the terrible Tudors and yet his influence and reputation remains unsullied here

Henry Tudor - the Usurper - did it! (or his butler

)

LoveHistory · Post by **LoveHistory** » Sat January 17th, 2009, 1:22 am

[quote=""Volgadon""]So they would be at his mercy anywhere in that case.[/quote]

Yes, but only if he could find them.

LOL at the butler.

EC2 · Post by **EC2** » Sat January 17th, 2009, 2:39 pm

[quote=""Christina""]Well...here in Yorkshire, we generally believe that 'our' Richard was the innocent and it was nasty Henry who did the murky murder. Richard's life was re-written by the terrible Tudors and yet his influence and reputation remains unsullied here

Henry Tudor - the Usurper - did it! (or his butler

)[/quote]

As a Lancastrian born and bred I am not so sure about that! LOL!