Who Really Murdered The Princes In The Tower?

Apparently, Charles III is keen to have the bones of the children found in the tower forensically analysed whereas his mother was not.

As an ardent Ricardian and member of the Richatd III Society, Matt Lewis our Chairman has certainly presented an excellent programme. As he says Richard had nothing to gain by their deaths (they had already been declared bastards due to the fact their father had marrief Eleanor Talbot, therefore neither could be king.) The Tudors however had plenty to gain as their claim was so weak and when Henry VII became king and married their sister their lives would have been forfeit. The Tudors were ruthless murdering tyrants who killed 80,000 people just so they could remain all powerful, that included Plantagenets, clergy, children and the disabled.

At 11:30, reference to Lord Bastard and Calais in 1485 is most likely John of Gloucester, Richard's illegitimate son who was appointed governor of Calais at that time and to whom the appellation "Bastard" was sometimes applied.

I have an unfair grudge against the Tower of London because I got lost there for about two hours when I was 11 on a school trip 🤦🏻‍♀️

If either of the Princes survived into the reign of Henry VIII then their days would certainly be numbered as he suffered no possible claimants to the throne.

One of the most frustrating mysteries of all time. I belive all the nobles knew exactly what happened to the boys but agreed to brush it under the carpet for the sake of expediency. Other English Kings had been bumped off in the past and the killers had the brass neck to say they died of some stupid reason like melancholia, but with the Princes, absolute silence.

A very, very interesting documentary. The host is both careful on hadling his hypothesis and adamant on his lifelong interest on the fate of the princes. I hope he has more documentaries because he is a scholar worth following. In addition to that, it must be said that the filming was excellent.

Richard likely had them murdered. It wouldn't even have been the first person he had murdered that year. William, 1st Baron Hastings, the guy that warned Richard that the Woodvilles were attempting to cut Richard out of the regency, was illegally executed supposedly because he was plotting with the Woodvilles, whom he hated. The more likely reason Richard had him killed was that his loyalty to Edward IV meant he wouldn't support Richard usurping Edward's son and taking the throne for himself. Richard also had the princes' uncle and half-brother killed, so clearly, Elizabeth Woodville was willing to come to terms with a man who murdered both her brother and son, because no one denies that he ordered the deaths of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. So the argument that her coming to terms with Richard meant the princes in the tower were still alive is weak at best. More likely, she was trying to ensure the safety of her surviving children. I don't understand why everyone wants to exonerate Richard. He, at the very least, was willing to usurp his nephew's throne. He had a lot of people executed to make that happen, so I don't get why everyone seems to think killing his nephews was a bridge too far.

I can never get past the fact that Uncle Richard insisted that Prince Richard join King Edward V in the Tower. Why would Richard III imprison the "spare" ? There is only one reason which makes any sense; King Richard knew that Edward would be killed so the next-in-line had to go too. Declaring the boys illegitimate would never have been enough to ensure a secure throne for Richard. He had already done away with some of the lords who had any power to object. As for the actions of the dowager Queen....she was probably being pragmatic rather than supportive or trusting of Richard. What choice did she have ? Her sons were gone, she still had many daughters to protect.

Actually he did bring up a good point. Why would Elizabeth Woodville agree to let two of her daughters be a part of Richard's court if Richard did say, for example kill them? He is a king but she is a mother and they were in sanctuary, he couldn't order or force her to do anything, so long as she stayed there. So something had gotten her to leave and let her daughters go into his custody. (Unless of course she wanted eyes and ears at the court to find out what happened herself) this honestly raises even more questions.

Can we just make it clear that for every hole in the theory Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews, there are far more holes in the theories about every other suspect.

Wow! The first person to make an informed video with possible theories that do not include all the previous rubbish. Well done that man!!! Subscribed!

Interesting question this raises. Well produced and presented. Thanks! 👍🌟

Loved this the storytelling was captivating throughly enjoyed this concept I hope you will do more videos on this topic

A bit far fetched in my opinion, particularly the reason given as to why Richard wouldn’t show the boys if they were alive. Also sending them overseas would have been too big a risk. During this era, threats were always eliminated.

Ingenious lawyerly exposition of the issues surrounding the fate of the 'princes in the Tower'. I cannot help but be reminded of Dan Jones' comment, "the medium-term context for deposed kings tells us that deposition mandates death - Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI..." They may have survived and there are certainly some odd features to this case like the silence of their mother and Henry VII who could easily have pointed the figure against Richard. My current feeling is that John Dening's view that he was forced into a corner and signed a document of sufficient ambiguity to allow for them to be done way with is more likely, though others, not least in the Church, were complicit.

Interesting theory. I remember studying this as a 16 year old O grade schoolboy in Edinburgh, we were studying James IV, who, despite his military misadventure, was no fool and had some of the leading scholars in Europe at his court. James was utterly convinced Perkin was the son of Edward, gave him a noble wife, armed him and supported his claim. James was eventually brought into peace by Henry with the marriage of Margaret, his daughter to the Scots King. However, there is another school of thought that this was a cynical move by James to needle Henry and that Elizabeth, Gordon, Lady Huntly, was hardly a high ranking nobleman. However, Elizabeth was the great granddaughter of Robert II of Scotland through her mother this meant that were Warbeck the son of Edward IV, Elizabeth Gordon and Warbeck were both descendents of William The Marshall, Earl of Pembroke who was Robert the Bruce's Great Great Grandfather and was a dirdct ancestor, through his de Braose grandaughter of King Edward IV . Also being daughter of the Earl of Huntly, she was hardly a junior noble.

The simpliest answer is usually the right one. The princes were likely killed and Richard likely had them killed just to do away with the threat. He didn't need to display any bodies, he just needed to be sure that there would never be any live body for an ambitious party to rally around.

I have sometimes wondered if perhaps it was Henry Tudor that ‘dealt’ with the princes.

The Duke of Buckingham had the motive and the opportunity. If Richard the 3rd is " infamous" it's only due to Tudor propaganda. He never wanted to be King and never expected that Edward would die so young. He had been appointed by Edward as Regent so there was nothing untoward there. Richard had always been a capable military commander and a fine manager of his large estates. There was no doubt about his ability to rule as Regent but when Buckingham murdered the young Princes, Richard had no choice but to assume the throne and try and deal with the unrest that Buckingham and his cronies were causing. The treachery of some of his Barons, on the battlefield, sealed his doom but he wasn't the evil man portayed by the Tudors... who were the real usurpers.