# Did Richard III kill the Princes in the Tower? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551 "2016-02-08T20:06:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/21 "2016-02-08T22:15:12Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > The Tudorites weren’t there - and if you aren’t going to credit them for knowing that it was Richard, why would you credit them with knowing it was suffocation? The whole point of this is no one knows how they died. They might have died of old age in Scotland for all we know (unlikely, they were too dangerous alive). They may have died of illness, or fallen down the stairs. What we know is they went into the Tower, then at some point, disappeared from History. Later, that\* is\* what they claimed. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/22 "2016-02-08T22:40:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Remember- HVII had no blood claim to the Throne. That’s not quite accurate: he had a weak claim, but he did have a claim. He was descended from John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, through the Beaufort line which was tainted with illegitimacy and then semi-restored by Parliament. Henry IV, V and VI were all descendants of Gaunt, but through a clearly legitimate line. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/23 "2016-02-08T23:27:01Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Except Henry VII had motive, means and opportunity as well. I believe Henry’s “means” were far less than Richard’s. Of course it partly depends when the boys were killed(dismissing the more romantic claims of an escape). The eyewitness testimony we have points towards their death/disappearance during the reign of Richard. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Also note, if RIII had them killed, he would have let it been known they were dead. Sorry, I wholeheartedly disagree. I can see a good reason as to why Richard would let it be known the Princes were dead, yet I can also see a good reason at to why he would keep it quiet. It all rather depends upon whether you believe an accusation of infanticide against Richard were more of a threat to him than the threat of a Pretender rearing his head. Personally, I believe the killing of two Princes he had _sworn to protect_ would have been the undoing of him. None of the options were good for Richard. That’s why those who insist Richard would have publicly declared them dead are so wrong imo ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/24 "2016-02-08T23:35:37Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s not quite accurate: he had a weak claim, but he did have a claim. He was descended from John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, through the Beaufort line which was tainted with illegitimacy and then semi-restored by Parliament. Henry IV, V and VI were all descendants of Gaunt, but through a clearly legitimate line. Pretty much every Peer in England was related in some way to the throne, so his claim was thinner than thin. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/25 "2016-02-08T23:50:48Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Pretty much every Peer in England was related in some way to the throne, so his claim was thinner than thin. Again, not quite true. Henry VII was probably the strongest claimant remaining on the Lancastrian side. This alone means his claim to the throne was strong enough. Note, the preceeding years were not so much a War of the Roses but the slaughter of the Lancastrian line by Yorkists. Add to this Henry’s “right” to the throne by conquest and he had a fairly decent overall claim to the throne. Obviously it was a stronger claim once he had conquered. Iam quite alarmed by the historic revisionism going on in this thread. Sure, Richard III has not been served well by historians until quite recently. Sure, he was the victim of Tudor propaganda. However, some Ricardian attempts to rehabilitate Richard do no more than propagandise for him. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/26 "2016-02-08T23:52:58Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Sorry, I wholeheartedly disagree. I can see a good reason as to why Richard would let it be known the Princes were dead, yet I can also see a good reason at to why he would keep it quiet. It all rather depends upon whether you believe an accusation of infanticide against Richard were more of a threat to him than the threat of a Pretender rearing his head. Personally, I believe the killing of two Princes he had _sworn to protect_ would have been the undoing of him. None of the options were good for Richard. That’s why those who insist Richard would have publicly declared them dead are so wrong imo The counterpoint to this is that all he had to do was claim they died of the plague or some nameless fever. It happened. No fewer than six of Richard’s own brothers and sisters died in childhood, e.g., and Richard’s son Edward of Middleham died suddenly in 1484, aged ten. In an era where assorted plagues and pestilences were almost routine, “I swore to protect them, but they got sick in the damp of London, right by the river, and God took them away” would have been perfectly plausible. As long as he made enough of a show of grief, accusations of infanticide would have been confined to the fringes, largely to those who were already whispering about him. Elizabeth Woodville’s family was not popular and the country had too much experience of child kings to waste very much effort on these two illegitimate spawn–there was just too much else going on. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/27 "2016-02-08T23:57:05Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Again, not quite true. Henry VII was probably the strongest claimant remaining on the Lancastrian side. That’s not saying much, though. Henry’s claim was on the wrong side of the blanket, and the fact that he was the last man standing did not by itself make a weak claim stronger. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/28 "2016-02-08T23:57:53Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Sorry, I wholeheartedly disagree. I can see a good reason as to why Richard would let it be known the Princes were dead, yet I can also see a good reason at to why he would keep it quiet. It all rather depends upon whether you believe an accusation of infanticide against Richard were more of a threat to him than the threat of a Pretender rearing his head. Personally, I believe the killing of two Princes he had _sworn to protect_ would have been the undoing of him. None of the options were good for Richard. That’s why those who insist Richard would have publicly declared them dead are so wrong imo No, just announce they died to a childhood illness. Happened all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/29 "2016-02-09T00:07:35Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Pick your poison, there are a few lines to choose from: > > [Alternative successions to the English and British Crown - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_successions_of_the_English_crown) The Clarence line was attainted, so that would eliminate them. That leaves the Beauforts. > [@](#): > > Henry VII was probably the strongest claimant remaining on the Lancastrian side. True, but unless you consider the Yorkist line as an invalid dynasty, there were Yorkists who were closer to the throne. In particular, the oldest daughter of Edward and Richard’s father, Anne Duchess of Exeter, has living descendants, the likeliest claimants being the Dukes of Rutland. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/30 "2016-02-09T00:18:47Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > That’s not saying much, though. Henry’s claim was on the wrong side of the blanket, and the fact that he was the last man standing did not by itself make a weak claim stronger. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The Clarence line was attainted, so that would eliminate them. That leaves the Beauforts. > > True, but unless you consider the Yorkist line as an invalid dynasty, there were Yorkists who were closer to the throne. In particular, the oldest daughter of Edward and Richard’s father, Anne Duchess of Exeter, has living descendants, the likeliest claimants being the Dukes of Rutland. I think that the fact Richard tried to have Henry arrested and killed while Henry was abroad shows just how serious Henry’s claim was. Sure, legal niceties may have placed others above Henry but legitimacy is in part made by the willingness of others to treat you as king. The fact that Henry was able to reign as king suggests others viewed his claim as fit for purpose. I would describe Henry’s right to be king as plausibly valid, no more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/31 "2016-02-09T00:27:04Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > That’s not saying much, though. Henry’s claim was on the wrong side of the blanket, and the fact that he was the last man standing did not by itself make a weak claim stronger. > [@DrDeth](#): > > No, just announce they died to a childhood illness. Happened all the time. This assumes no-one would wish to inspect the bodies, that the bodies were unmarked after their murder, and that plague victims didn’t show signs of the plague. I’d say the option you both propose was possible but not nearly as simple as you both suggest. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/32 "2016-02-09T00:37:27Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Except Henry VII had motive, means and opportunity as well. Except that would have meant they were alive when he came to power, and not a single commentator mentioned the fact. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/33 "2016-02-09T02:01:01Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Except that would have meant they were alive when he came to power, and not a single commentator mentioned the fact. How would they know? HVII arrives, they find the Princes in the Tower, he has them secretly killed and their bodies hidden- and then says nothing about it. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/34 "2016-02-09T02:18:39Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Richard III had motive (and then some), means and opportunity… > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Except Henry VII had motive, means and opportunity as well. Realising they had a common interest, they joined forces … each of them killed one Prince! That way neither could ever accuse the other without implicating himself. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/35 "2016-02-09T02:43:59Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > No no, I don’t think Richard did it, and yes, I think Henry did. Henry got rid of an awful lot of other people. The princes would have been just two more, more or less, and he’d probably lost count. “All causes will give way. I am in blood stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as . . .” Wait, wrong play . . . ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/36 "2016-02-09T03:10:52Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Realising they had a common interest, they joined forces … each of them killed one Prince! That way neither could ever accuse the other without implicating himself. That’s more Agatha Christie than Josephine Tey. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/37 "2016-02-09T03:13:04Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > That’s more Agatha Christie than Josephine Tey. “Another unsolved mystery of the early reign of Henry VII is the disappearance of the notoriously inquisitive Sir Hercule of Flanders . . .” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/38 "2016-02-09T04:00:20Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The Clarence line was attainted, so that would eliminate them. That leaves the Beauforts. Of course, Richard of York had also been attainted, which means that Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III could never be king. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/39 "2016-02-09T04:10:13Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Except Henry VII had motive, means and opportunity as well. The boys disappeared in 1483 and Henry wasn’t in power till 1485. How could Henry have murdered the boys without Richard knowing? If the boys were still alive why wouldn’t Richard make sure people knew it since there were already rumors of their death? It couldn’t have been Buckingham working on Henry’s orders either since Richard surely would have accused him of the murder when Buckingham rebelled. So how exactly was Henry to have murdered the boys when he was in exile in France? Also don’t forget that Richard did a pilgrim’s journey to the shrine of Thomas Becket… what was he feeling so guilty about? > **[New evidence: Was Richard III guilty of murdering the Princes in the Tower?](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower)** > > Records in Canterbury could hold a clue to the king’s role in his nephews’ demise. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/40 "2016-02-09T04:54:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Except Henry VII had motive, means and opportunity as well. Yes, but as I have mentioned before, Henry Tudor agreed to marry the Lady Elizabeth over a year before his invasion, and its unlikely that the Dowager Queen would have agreed to the match unless she was very confident her sons were already dead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551.md?page=3)