# Did Richard III kill the Princes in the Tower?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551>\
**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:** 3\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/61 "2016-02-10T16:59:52Z")

</div>

> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> Richard is the most likely suspect, for most reasons written here. Either him, or he ordered someone else to do it. They were never seen again after they came into his custody, not by a single person. Did he ever say anything to the boys’ mother or sisters afterwards?
> 
> Henry was capable, sure, but Richard is the more obvious candidate, if you apply Occam’s Razor.
> 
> You’re thinking of the Princes’ uncle, the [Duke of Clarence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence#Death).

The third possibility for Richard - it was done on his behalf, but without his knowledge. I don’t find it at all likely that he killed them himself - why get your hands dirty when there are so many people scrambling for position? Which may bring us to someone taking a proactive step and doing him the favor. The same can be said for Henry, but Henry is still gathering his power base in exile at that time. (And frankly, I think his mother is more likely than Henry - there was an ambitious bitch of a woman).

And thanks for coming back to the wine thing, I was going to look that one up.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/62 "2016-02-10T17:08:52Z")

</div>

I don’t see anyone taking the step of killing the boys without Dicks says so. It just has too many risks, you would piss off a powerful family that still might come to the throne, you could easily find yourself being punished by a King, annoyed that you killed his nephews, you could also be used as a scapegoat and suffer a very unpleasant execution,

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551/63 "2016-02-10T17:51:51Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> I don’t see anyone taking the step of killing the boys without Dicks says so. It just has too many risks, you would piss off a powerful family that still might come to the throne, you could easily find yourself being punished by a King, annoyed that you killed his nephews, you could also be used as a scapegoat and suffer a very unpleasant execution,

Its an era in which with great risk comes great reward - or your head on a pike - many, many stupider things were done in order to get a leg up in court.

Buckingham may have also offed the boys to set up his rebellion. His claim to the throne was as good as Henry’s - at the time they were in cahoots, but in the end only one of them would be king. I’d find him to be a much more likely candidate than Henry - he had better access and the timing is right. But I still think it was Richard.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-richard-iii-kill-the-princes-in-the-tower/745551.md?page=3)