The Princes in the Tower

I cannot prove that Richard killed his nephews, but I think it highly probable.
However, we do know he was present when Hastings was dragged from the Privy Council and had his head severed from his body. If Richard had not wanted that to happen then Hastings would have lived. After all it was Richard’s men who carried out this murder.
Richard had Rivers murdered in Pontefract which sent a message to all of Edward V’s supporters. Defy me and I will kill you. Having removed Edward V’s two man supporters Richard then surrounded the Parliament with his men and introduced Titulus Regius.
Edward Woodville took two ships and ran for the continent when he heard what had happened his brother. I think his voting with his feet speaks volumes.
I don’t think Richard would have allowed the Princes to be sent abroad as they would then have attracted all the disgruntled Yorkists who did not like the way he stole the throne.
What man calls his brother a bastard and makes his mother an adulteress? Richard tried this but his mother the Dowager Duchess of York would not allow it.
So he picked on two people who could not answer back because they were dead, Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot. Richard made his brother’s children bastards. That was a saintly act.
The more I read and learn about Richard the more I am convinced that he had his nephews murdered. I think he was a thoroughly ruthless man who was only interested in his own ambitions.
We will never know what happened to the Princes but I do know I would not trust him with the care of my sons, which is the most damning indictment I can make.
If you have children would you trust them to Richard’s care?

I'm off the opinion that the murders were done under Richard's rule and as he was the man responsble for their situation in the first place then he is certainly guilty of negligence. Were they murdered without his orders but done for him, a la Becket and Henry II, who knows?

We will probably never have the mystery solved but I certainly think there is enough evidence to absolve Henry VII of any involvement. Witness his apparent indecision and surprise when Perkin Warbeck turned up;

One aspect of the case I do not understand is certain Ricardians who absolutly reject any culpability by Richard III. At the end of the day, if Richard killed his nephews, it was a ruthless act that was neccessary for self persevation. I personally don't see the issue with this. We can't attach modern sympathies and morals to a medieval period.

Henry judicially murdered Warwick in 1499 and I seek to make no apologies for this or excuse it. It was an act that was neccessary for his survival.

Thanks for that link. jcat

I can't wait to look at that, I peeked at it last night! I would havd never found that.

I never liked the idea of mock trials of something that happened over 500 years ago. To proceed with a trial in the modern sense, forensic evidence would need to be collected at the crime scene, witnesses' statements recorded, etc. None of this is possible now since it happened so long ago. It does not negate, however, that all circumstantial reporting at the time incriminates Richard as the most likely suspect. That unfortunately is the best knowledge we have of the matter. Acquitting him in a modern courtroom is therefore a meaningless exercise. Brutus and company would probably be exonerated today for Caesar's murder too because there are no living witnesses coming forward to testify for the prosecution and no one can produce the murder weapon.

hello, I'm new on this forum, I really thoroughly enjoyed the article on defense of Henry VII, the almost hysterical worship of Richard III, is already unpleasant enough, but the statement I have read lately that H7 killed the princes, without the slightest logical is frustrating, or even trying to make an argument, make me sick. The article was well articulated and should be further publicized. Pretty soon they will say that the princes were abducted by aliens, than killed by orders of RIII. I am firm believer that when we have such a mysterious fact like this, either today, or 500 years ago, should eliminate all the absurd theories, and focus on what is simpler and therefore more likely and logical. RIII is guilty of negligence, at least. Unfortunately there is a strong campaign against H7 that only seems to grow in recent times, that he answer in the story by the crimes he actually committed, and not by the crimes of others.