Are there any evidences to support that King Richard III had killed the princes in the tower?

Answer 1

Only historical tittle tattle

Answer 2

There are two excellent books which have made me uneasy, to put it mildly, about this whole supposition. One is "We speak no Treason" by Rosemary Hawley Jarman and the other is "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. The latter is particularly convincing, as it takes the form of a detective inquiry when at a London hospital recuperating from a fall, Inspector Alan Grant becomes fascinated by a portrait of King Richard. A student of human faces, Grant cannot believe that the man in the picture would kill his own nephews. With an American researcher's help, Grant delves into his country's history to discover just what kind of man Richard Plantagenet was and who really killed the little princes. The conclusion is that Richard III had nothing to gain and that Henry VII had everything to gain by the death of the two princes. When I went round an exhibition about Richard III some years back I was struck by the fact that he and Lady Anne both owned missals. A small detail, perhaps, but it was explained that it was extremely rare for any individual to own such a treasure in those days and that to do so was an indication of personal piety. This, then, was the private man: a man who was quietly devout. It doesn't sound like a murderer to me.

Answer 3

Yes, guilty as charged.
He imprisoned them and they never emerged. Of course it was in his interest to kill them - Edward V was 12, and Edward III had overthrown the people marginalising him at 17. So Richard's time was running out.
Rumours were already circulating in late 1493 that the Princes were dead. - witness the letter of Mancini, which wasn't discovered till the 20th century. Markham couldn't have known about this, but Tey deliberately ignored it. No, hers is not a good book - it's tendentious.
As for the skeletons, if they're not the princes, whose are they? The Tower records are good, and there's no one else that fits the bill. Also they were found, in 1674, buried exactly as Thomas More said they were buried. Don't forget that More went to his death for what he considered the truth - you can't dismiss him as a propaganda scribbler just because you happen to disagree with him.
Richard III has the glamour of history's losers - shared by the dinosaurs, the cavaliers, the jacobites, the confederates and the nazis.

Answer 4

Richard III definitely had Edward V and the Duke of York (11 and 9 years old or so at the time) put in the Tower. He captured Edward V, and the little Duke's mother (Elizabeth Woodville) willingly surrendered him. The princes never emerged from the Tower, and it was assumed they died or were murdered. Never was any concrete evidence. Two young skeletons were found buried in the Tower in the 1900s, but testing did not show these to be the princes. Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's daughter, Elizabeth, was eventually married to Henry Tudor (Henry VII), thereby making a stronger claim to the throne for Henry and ending the York/Lancaster war (later becoming to be known as the War of the Roses).

Answer 5

History is written by the winner, and the Yorks did not win the war of the Roses, so there was a lot of vilification, bit like the job they have done on Saddam - but like Saddam, there is no smoke without fire.

Pretty much everything Shakespeare knew about Richard came from a history written by Sir Thomas More. And Moore was only five years old when Richard died, so what did he know? Well he knew what side his bread was buttered on, and it was the Tudors who were giving out favours.

Elizabeth would have had Shakespere head on a plate if he didnt toe the royal line, so we can blame him for our image of this king. One of the worst accusations levelled at Richard III was that he murdered the Princes in the Tower.

Richard was created Duke of Gloucester in 1461 after his eldest brother, Edward, had deposed Henry VI and been crowned Edward IV. When Edward IV died, Richard became protector of the realm for the dead king's son, the 12 year old Edward V. Richard then waged a campaign to get the boy and his brother declared bastards, and proclaimed himself king.

The princes were supposedly the offspring of a bigamous union since their father, Edward IV, was, at the time of his marriage to their Elizabeth Woodville, already contracted to a French princess. Engagements (betrothals) at that time were legally binding. Later reports state that Edward had in fact secretly married Lady Eleanor Butler before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (Lady Grey). Since both Lady Butler and Edward were dead, it was hard to disprove the allegation.


Once Richard had been crowned and his nephews bastardised, some historians believe that the young princes were no longer a threat. however, their disappearance led to a great controversy around Richard and accusations of murder still linger.

The evidence

Sometime between mid-April and early June 1483, the princes,
Edward and Richard, were taken to the Tower of London, which was then both a royal residence and prison.

After the summer of 1483, neither of the princes was seen in
public again.

The skeletons of two children were found under some stairs in the Tower in 1674 and buried in Westminster Abbey. In the 1930s, the remains were exhumed and examined and deemed to be of the right age to have been the two princes and thought to have died by suffocation. No conclusive evidence exists.

Some have argued that the princes outlived Richard III and were killed by Henry Tudor (Richmond). Richard, the argument goes, had no need to murder his nephews to get the throne, since he had already bastardised them. Henry on the other hand, had relegitimated them in order to marry their sister, Elizabeth. However, no evidence exists to support the notion that the princes were still alive after the summer of 1483, which makes it very unlikely that Richmond did order the deaths of the boys.

Answer 6

I do not know of any evidence supporting Richard III killed the princes. Saying Richard III killed the princes is most likely to be Tudor propaganda.

Answer 7

It was propaganda spread by the supporters of Henry VII to emphasise what an evil king Richard was (and thus how wonderful it was for Henry to have overthrown him). There were even rumours at the time that the princes were still alive and in hiding.

Answer 8

i think of Richard III replaced into in the back of it, regardless of if by skill of foreknowledge or no longer. His supporters might have finished it with out his expertise. The barons of england have been divided over help for Richard III and the extra youthful princes and removing the princes eradicated the different claimants to the throne, leaving the barons who adversarial Richard no person to assist and minimized the opportunity of a revolt.

Answer 9

He was the number one suspect as they stood in his way of being king, but there is no hard evidence to suggest he was involved in their death's

Answer 10

History homework huh, bummer.