The Princes In The Tower

Who killed the princes in the Tower?

  • Richard

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Henry

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Someone we've not considered

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Total voters
    13

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Reaction score
10
Points
49
Who do YOU think did it? How had the means motive and opportunity to commit one of our most famous unsolved murders? Place your vote and make your comment :)

8¬)
 

carole

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
2,307
Reaction score
78
Points
79
Blueswidow said:
Hmmmmm, Richard he had the most to gain.
Richad as the evil uncle was all Tudor conspiracy, I tell you!

Carole
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Reaction score
10
Points
49
Who ever was going to be King had the most to gain... From Richard's POV he wouldn't want a rallying point, from Heny's he wouldn't want some one with potentially a better claim on the throne, even if they had been declared bastard

So choose :)

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It was a Scottish culprit, possibly with ties to the Knights Templar, in order to cause political chaos in England.
 

TheOriginalCujo

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
848
Reaction score
26
Points
49
Dr Phibes said:
It was a Scottish culprit, possibly with ties to the Knights Templar, in order to cause political chaos in England.
That's it. Blame us for everything. Damn sasenachs.

But seriously. I don't know enough about the conspiracy to vote but I can't help ask if anyone's considered natural causes. Medicine was a lot more primative back then and the Tower was damp and poorly heated.

Cujo
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
carole said:
Richad as the evil uncle was all Tudor conspiracy, I tell you!

Carole

Yes, all that stuff about him being a hunchback was just propaganda.
 

meanderer1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 31, 2001
Messages
408
Reaction score
3
Points
47
Another possible contender is Richard's cousin, Henry Duke of Buckingham. He had motive (designs on the throne himself), opportunity (custodian of the tower) and he was "a proud-minded man and evilly could bear the glory of another, so that I have heard, of some that said they saw it, that the Duke at such times as the crown was first set upon the Protector's head, his eye could not abide the sight thereof, but he twisted his head another way."

See
http://www3.sympatico.ca/eckford/Riii2.htm
for more details

And anyway Henry Tudor couldn't have done it coz he's Welsh!
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,822
Reaction score
31,212
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Newly published research claims Thomas More's account of the murders and murderers is more valid than previously believed because More was personally acquainted with two sons of the man he named as a murderer.
New study strengthens claims Richard III murdered 'the Princes in the Tower

King Richard III's involvement in one of the most notorious and emotive mysteries in English history may be a step closer to being confirmed following a new study by Professor Tim Thornton of the University of Huddersfield. ...

Defenders of Richard III have pointed to a lack of hard evidence to connect the king to the disappearance of the princes, who were aged just 12 and 9 when Richard took the throne in June 1483. But in 'More on a Murder' for History, the Journal of the Historical Association, Professor Thornton says that there is now clear evidence to substantiate the allegations against the men identified as the boys' murderers, and to connect them to Richard III.

Integral to this is the 'History of King Richard III' by Sir Thomas More, the first detailed account of the deaths of the princes. More named two men, Miles Forest and John Dighton, as the murderers. More claimed that they were recruited by Sir James Tyrell, a servant of Richard III at his orders.

Until now, many people have questioned this story as being written long after the event, as 'Tudor propaganda' to blacken the name of a dead king, and even suggested that the names of the alleged murderers were made up by More. ...

But Professor Thornton believes that More came to the right conclusion due to some inside knowledge. Two of the famed politician and philosopher's fellow courtiers were the sons of Miles Forest, one of the men More named as having killed the princes. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/uoh-nss020121.php

PUBLISHED ARTICLE:
More on a Murder: The Deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, and Historiographical Implications for the Regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII
TIM THORNTON
History. First published: 28 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-229X.13100

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-229X.13100
 

Sgt Girth

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
353
Reaction score
819
Points
94
My firm belief is that Richard III was absolutely guilty of murdering, or I should say ordering the murder of, the two young princes.....but even if he wasn’t then at the very least he was a pretty shitty uncle!
 

Dick Turpin

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
517
Reaction score
2,355
Points
134
It’s my old man’s claim to fame that he was locked up in the Tower (all be it for only a couple of hours).

He tells everyone that will listen to him. Whenever he walks into his local pub, a big groan goes up and people make their excuses and leave :hahazebs:
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,692
Reaction score
8,862
Points
219
Location
York
That's it. Blame us for everything. Damn sasenachs.

But seriously. I don't know enough about the conspiracy to vote but I can't help ask if anyone's considered natural causes. Medicine was a lot more primative back then and the Tower was damp and poorly heated.

Cujo
I have seen several programmes where they have considered natural causes. Apparently, one of the princes had a track record of poor health and doctor's visits whilst in the Tower, and I think TB was speculated upon. With the bodies having to be quietly buried because otherwise there would be accusations of murder...
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,602
Reaction score
1,700
Points
184
Thing is, I like to put things into perspective.
1) From the get-go, any action against a child-royal is perfectly understandable and common in medieval politics. If you consider the ages of succession, marriage and political manipulation of the day, killing a kid or two wasn't then a heinous crime that we'd consider these days. Killing or harming a legitimate monarch (age unimportant) was! Really! The legal wranglings, the loop-hole miners needed to actually axe a "certified" monarch was immense. Let me put it this way: if a king was put on the throne 'illegally' then opponents could not use the same illegal measures to put their candidates royal bum on the seat.
In summation, age aside, the suspicious death of an heir apparent at the hands of a regent or protector or a "jolly uncle who only wants the best" would not aid an usurper, even among his supporters.
2) Richard had the heir apparent under control. As regent, he had loads of time to create foundations for his power move. He was known and recorded (until the Tudor 'purge' of records) as a good administrator, warrior and (yes) king. He had no need to kill the young 'uns. The only suggested pressure was from the Tudor line but, in reality, they had a weak claim to the throne (that same throne of the kiddie). The Tudors challenged the Plantagenets. And said children - one known as sickly - were, at the end, Plantagenets! Keep this thought.
3) If - and it's a big "if" considering contemporary accounts of Richard III's character and temperament - Richard, Duke of York had decided to kill the Heir Apparent then he was canny enough not to do it in a Royal Palace while the victims were officially under his care, under his protection.
The idea of him rubbing his hands with glee, no doubt chuckling in diabolic glee, is completely unfeasible. It's the same thought as expecting Greta Thunberg saying, on record, "Fuck it, I want a private jet to fly me to the Antarctic and kill a penguin to have a burger!"
On record, mind.
4) The Tudors were pressuring the Lords to confirm at least their challenge to the throne. They weren't waiting for Richard to die, or get replaced by the King, or any close relative. They were actively probing at ways to get an 'in' on the legitimate claim for the throne. Please Note: What they wanted was a legitimate claim; after all, if you get the throne, why would you open yourselves up to a legal challenge. "Done and dusted!" is the aim.

Now.
Assuming the bodies found in the arrow chest in the Tower are of the *ahem* missing kids.
Assuming that both missing lads (one legitimate royal, one chum) had a legal right to their position ...
Richard would've been an absolute political cretin to axe them. This isn't "right by might". Richard needed legitimacy. He'd demonstrated his ability as Regent (as John of Gaunt had done before) and while the boy-king was in his power, he'd have been insane to have killed him 'cause it would've taken his legitimacy away!
And Richard, Duke of York was far from stupid.

What happened?

Two possible situations:
1) Accident which killed the boy-King. His chum, no matter how highly-placed, is expendable. Imagine the dialogue:
"Sire. The fledgling-King is dead!"
"Fuck me! How?"
"Dunno. He tripped over a hedgehog. Ate a lamprey (which frankly give me the jibber-jabbers). Summat."
"He's got a friend, aint he? Is he okay?"
"Dunno. No one seems to care about him."
"Right. He aint dead, you understand me? I mean, anyone asks ... he's not dead."
"What about ... thing. Y'know. His playmate?"
"Well, if the Prince is not dead, and there's someone who is saying he knows for a fact he's dead, then who do you want more dead? The Prince or ..."
"Gotcha, Rick!"
"Call me Rick again and I'll boil you alive!"
2) Tudors engineer an assassination.
"So, our plan worked?"
"Yup. How many guards can you bribe for the same amount as a single frock?"
"Kid's dead?"
"Absolutely! I imagine Ricky is going spare, trying to cover it all up!"
"He's feckin' lost it now! Get out of this one, you wobbly-backed git!"
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,692
Reaction score
8,862
Points
219
Location
York
Or one of Richard's supporters could have killed the boys, thinking he was doing his mate a favour.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,602
Reaction score
1,700
Points
184
Exactly.
Sometimes history isn't 'done' by history-makers.
It's done by someone who said "I thought I was doing it for the best!"
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,031
Reaction score
5,099
Points
203
I have seen several programmes where they have considered natural causes. Apparently, one of the princes had a track record of poor health and doctor's visits whilst in the Tower, and I think TB was speculated upon. With the bodies having to be quietly buried because otherwise there would be accusations of murder...
That sort of backfired lol
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,592
Reaction score
11,539
Points
294
My firm belief is that Richard III was absolutely guilty of murdering, or I should say ordering the murder of, the two young princes.....but even if he wasn’t then at the very least he was a pretty shitty uncle!
That was essentially a lifestyle choice back then. Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk probably wins the worst uncle award.

He pretty much helped throw Ann and her brother George Boylean under the bus and wasn't too much help with his other niece Catherine Howard either.

Life was extremely cheap then even if you were in a privileged position.
 

Aether Blue

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
38
Reaction score
102
Points
18
Their bodies have not been identified definitively. If these lads were abducted instead, then time dilation, cryonics, or other effects could permit them to still* be alive. There may not BE a murder at all!

* The word "still" becomes complicated in an Einsteinian universe, but an equivalent expression no doubt could be formulated in terms of light cones.
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,692
Reaction score
8,862
Points
219
Location
York
Richard had declared them illegitimate, so they couldn't challenge him for the throne. The danger would have come when either one of the princes attained their majority and decided to fight for it, possibly rallying supporters around him (although Richard had a perfectly good claim to the throne in his own right, through John o Gaunt if I remember rightly, this is all from memory).

So, whilst disposing of the boys wasn't necessary, it may have been seen as expedient, to prevent challenges down the line. I can see Richard being quite happy with them tucked away in the Tower (which wasn't entirely a prison, there were some quite decent living quarters there too, the boys weren't locked in a cell with rats), someone else may have thought they were better off out of the way.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,749
Reaction score
40,414
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
That was essentially a lifestyle choice back then. Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk probably wins the worst uncle award.

He pretty much helped throw Ann and her brother George Boylean under the bus and wasn't too much help with his other niece Catherine Howard either.

Life was extremely cheap then even if you were in a privileged position.
Howard lived to a ripe old age too, 80-odd. Most unusual for the time.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
1,843
Points
184
Location
Indiana
Colonel Mustard with a candlestick...?

Ok...I'm just a silly American
;)
 

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,711
Reaction score
9,173
Points
284
How about the two pretenders? Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck? does anyone think either of them was one of the princes? There is some support for Warbeck actually being the Duke of York.
 
Top