Dubai, Did Richard III Murder The Princes in the Tower?
Dubai videos | Buildings | Information | History | Emirates | View
Why it is time once and for all to stop assuming that Richard III, one of England's finest kings, murdered his nephews the Princes in the Tower.
Comments
-
Your logic is completely flawed - firstly if Richard murdered the two boys it might have caused revulsion but it couldn't cause rebellion because you cannot champion the Royal claim of a dead person, so as repulsed as people might have been people would have had no choice but to swallow it. Secondly, if the now illegitimate Edward V was no longer a threat why were the two princes made to remain in the tower. Richard III clearly had the two children murdered. Saying that a law made them illegitimate is nonsense, laws can always be repealed, the death of a Royal claimant cannot be repealed.
-
Very informative video. Thank you a lot!
-
Where can I get a copy of that book that he was reading from?
-
I think it was Henry's mother...
-
Poppycock. The princes were last seen alive a number of months prior to the death of Richard III. Edward V, the older prince, was Richard's prisoner, and Richard also summarily executed the prince's adult supporters, including his uncle, Lord Rivers, on trumped up charges of treason. Richard also succeeded in persuading the widowed queen into turning over the younger prince to Him from sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. There is no evidence that the princes were alive at the end of Richard's reign, and as ironically noted, Richard had a powerful incentive to "bury" the young princes. Richard III's entire history after the death of his brother, Edward IV, shows that he was well aware of the danger that therir continuing existence presented to his crown, and that he was just the man to do them in.
-
what a retard
-
In 1502 we have James Tyrrell confessing to the murders of the two young princes, under Richard's orders. His trial was attended by the king and queen and he was facing charges of treason. Knowing that he was to die, Tyrell made, it is said while in the Tower, a confession of his guilt as to the princes; Dighton, his accomplice, was also examined and confessed. It is the substance of this confession that forms the history of the murder as we know it, though the text has not been preserved.
-
One forgets that Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII, also had access to the Princes and had every reason to want them dead because they were also an obstacle to her son's possibility of claiming the throne.
-
I believe that Elizabeth Woodville's moves are the key for this plot. Whoever is able to clarify her moves, put them in the right order and maybe add something new will possibly shed light on what really happened.
Main doubts:
If ever, why she was silent when Stillington's version came out? And why Edward IV did not take any precaution knowing that his heirs were at risk? Moreover, why the hell she sent Richard to the Tower together with the elder prince? Suicide move under every point of view.
My feeling is that possibly Richard and Elizabeth have chosen to protect the princes by temporarly removing them from the hotspot, being aware of even more than one conspiracy against the Yorkists. (Margaret Beaufort, and Hastings could have been two different faces of the same coin or even two different attempts to grab the crown). Then after Bosworth it has been relatively easy for the Tudors to wipe them out of history, and put the blame on Richard. Both the Queen and the Lord Protector were very well aware that England could not be ruled by a boy or a weak King, like the Lancastrians proved over the previous decades. Again, the White Queen (or maybe even Elizabeth of York, as she ran to the Tower with her husband to make sure that the last mouth able to talk was properly shut up) has the answer. -
Even though I do very much enjoy these different and new takes on famous old conspiracies, I think it could only be Richard III. People like to say that everything was Tudor propaganda, and while it is true it was found he had no hunchback, he had a spinal deformity, meaning his back would have been funnily shaped. What else could be true? I definitely do agree he was made out to be much more wicked than he actually was, though he was definitely ambitious. Dominic Mancini, an Italian who visited England during Richard's time, wrote a live account of his reign. From what I recall, be free to correct me; he stated that Richard III was incredibly ambitious, and that people at that time believed Richard III had the princes, 'done away with.'
And the fact it makes perfect sense. The trick is not to over think it and simply put yourself in Richard's shoes. Within three months of his brother's death, not only had he said Edward IV - his own brother - was illegitimate but also his brothers sons, (creating the 'Titulus Regius.') He did this because, like Mancini states - he was ambitious. It's obvious! Nobody would slander their own family members unless they were very needy for a crown. Richard III was quite desperate to have the princes under his watch and control, why? And why did they just vanish after the coronation? Surely someone, somewhere would have seen them - Mancini was not the only one writing at the time. He even wrote about Edward V being comforted after finding out he would not be King, but in fact his uncle - showing that these writers at the time had a lot of sources and information available to them, and even Mancini was baffled on what had happened to them. I know people are creating 'ifs' and 'buts' but honestly, none make any sense. Why would he send them away? Keeping the princes alive, anywhere, would cause serious threat to his reign. With them disposed off, who would his enemies point to instead of him? There would be no way to call him a usurper. The Henry Tudor idea is ridiculous too. No way would the princes have been missing for 2-3 years, not without a single sighting by anyone.
My final point are the skeletons under the staircase. I find it quite hard to understand anyone who doesn't think it's that of the two princes. Think about it logically, the skeletons of two boys, who went missing some two hundred years before being found, who fit the age of Edward and Richard - went completely missing and no one knew what happened to them. Further evidence shows that their cousin was also found (in around 1960 I think?) and it showed they were related to those skeletons believed to be the princes in the tower, by dental evidence.
My conclusion, two boys - who were seen as a threat to a rather ambitious man, did the hard decision of 'putting them away,' which is why he nor anybody else ever mentioned them or attempted to show/talk about them publicly. Hid them under the stairs so nobody would see them carrying off the bodies, and alas! his reign is secured. Which, funnily enough, is the most accepted theory! -
The presenter contradicts himself. Early in the video he makes the oft repeated case that Richard had “nothing to fear” from his nephews (actually, of a party forming around them) once they were declared illegitimate. Later in the video, he states that Richard kept them incommunicado in the tower for fear of supporters trying to free and restore them. Which is it? Of course, the legitimacy question could have easily been reversed if Edward’s V's party came to power. The parliament was a rubber stamp for the king at that point in English history. Henry VII’s line of descent from John of Gaunt had been first judged illegitimate and then later legitimized. Even then, they were attained from ever sitting on the throne. Obviously, he did.
If Henry VII had had them murdered, then how exactly did Thomas More know where they were buried? Who ever accused Henry prior to More's time? Where would have More gotten such information? The Church of England and the queen refuses to allow DNA testing on the skeletal remains of the two children buried in the tower under the staircase. I have no doubt that if such was done now, in light of the DNA testing on Richard’s remains, that it would be proof positive that they were his close relatives, his nephews. Besides, what other two kids could have possibly been buried there like that? Who? Why? Dental evidence could well determine their ages which would lay to rest all doubt in my opinion.
Finally, from all accounts, Henry and his wife had a wonderfully (and surprisingly, considering that it was the most political of marriages!) harmonious marriage and seemed to genuinely love each other. Henry was always a pious man at heart and had been as merciful as the times and circumstances permitted him to be. (For example, he spared Lambert Simnel, the hapless pretender boy tool of de la Pole.) Whom seems the more likely villain here? A man who spared a ten year old child who claimed his throne or a man who deposed and (at the very least) walled his own child nephews up for his own benefit? Come now, Mr. Goacher. Methinks thou dost protest too much! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) -
hey look down there a jerk a dumbo he thinks Richard 3 is his grand father
-
Richard killed those boys. if he didnt.then why weren't they looked for.
-
People generally seem to first decide which version of the story they prefer, then seek out what seems to be evidence which seems to back up their side just as lawyers battle in court. The focus is always more on winning the debate than finding out what really happened. It is to the credit of Mark Goacher that both arguments can find points to bolster their arguments here. For myself, the fact that only the elder Prince was taken at first, then following the execution of Hastings, the second was taken by force with Elizabeth Woodville's home surrounded says to me that Richard was involved.
-
What about Henry VIIs mother Margaret? She was a big influence, I don't think she's innocent here either.
-
Right Richard didn't need to kill them. BUT HE DID ! After the boys disappeared the English people came to correctly despise Richard. Richard desperately tried to reduce the contempt the English people had for him by making his famous tour. But it didn't help. When Richard put out a call for volunteered to help him fight Henry Tutor only HALF AS MANY volunteered as had to his previous calls. And that was why he lost to Henry. The corpses of the Princes were discovered under the landing stone at the base of the stairway. Richard was responsible for the Princes, that is all that matters.
Now as to if Adolph Hitler was innocent of anti-Semitic sentiment in Germany during the 1930s........ -
makes perfect sense to me
-
As I understand it, the Princes just vanished from the Tower in 1483. Anything could have happened - murder, died of natural causes, moved to another location or spirited out of the Tower. Richard remains the prime suspect for whatever happened as - let's face it - he had motive, method and opportunity. Henry VII had motive, but not opportunity. But it does seem a stupid move for Richard to kill them if he did - he must have known people would guess - even in those times, killing kids was shocking. Once the story started, Richard's name was destroyed so much it led to his downfall, yet he made no denial of the accusation. Why?
-
Brilliant. Don't forget Elizabeth of York had to be legitimate for Henry T to marry her so her brothers must be legit also. Good reason to kill. Buckingham also involved and Richard didn't need to kill the Princes. Sir James Tyrell and T of L summed it up beautifully. But why do you have a Red Dragon next to your name. That's Tudor!
-
I've leaned towards the theory that Buckingham killed the Princes and tried to frame Richard for it. Buckingham felt his own claim on the throne was strong, and he was also collaborating with the Tudors behind Richard's back. One of Richard's fatal flaws was that he was too trusting. He had appointed Buckingham as the protector of the two princes with regard for their welfare.
175Rating