DId Richard III really kill his nephews?

Question

Who thinks so, and why?

Answer 1

He was the last king from the House of York, and his defeat at the Battle of Bosworth marked the culmination of the Wars of the Roses and the end of the Plantagenet dynasty.
When he was appointed Protector or the Realm, upon the death of his brother Edward IV, he feared that the Woodville relatives of the sons of Edward would isolate and try to use their influence over the elder son, Edward V, to consolidate thier power over Richard. Consequently, Richard took Edward to stay at the Tower of London which was then a royal palace. It was a move widely supported since much of the country distrusted the former queen's family. Edward's younger brother, Richard, was removed to the Tower on 16 June, with his mother's consent. It was, originally, a move to protect the very underaged King and the brother next in line to the throne.
Because of a betrothal contract that pre-dated Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, his union with her was declared bigamous and the children illegitimate. Additionally, Titulus Regius also cited two further grounds upon which Edward IV's marriage had been invalid, namely that it was made "in a profane place" and that it was made "without the assent of the Lords".
Despite rumours that Richard's claims were true, evidence was lacking and it was generally accepted that Richard's principal motive for taking the crown was that he felt that his own power and wealth would be threatened under Edward V, who was presumably sympathetic to his Woodville relatives.
Since the Woodvilles were a powerful family, inlikely to tamely sit by, Richard consolidated his claims on the throne and was crowned King.
I believe that while Richard had knowledge of the murder of the two, he was not directly responsible in taking their lives with his own hands. It was, in those times, tantamount to a royal order for a trusted confidante of the King to have heard him say.."These Princes must be dealt with. We are perplexed as to how to deal with them." or some such other offhand remark. In this way, the threat was neutralized and the King faultless.

.

Answer 2

According to Wikipedia on the internet, Richard III put his nephews in the Tower of London. The following appears under "Princes in the Tower."

"The Princes in the Tower, Edward V of England (November 4, 1470 – 1483-5?) and his brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (17 August 1473 – 1483?), were the two young sons of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville who were declared illegitimate by the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius.

"Their uncle, Richard III of England, placed them both in the Tower of London (then a royal residence as well as a prison) in 1483, and they were never seen again. Their fate remains unknown, although they are presumed by many to have been killed there. However, it is not certain that the princes were murdered at all. Child mortality was extremely high during the era, and it is plausible that the princes died natural deaths. This explanation would not explain the lack of a funeral.

"In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. These were believed to have been the remains of the two princes, but there has been recent evidence against that theory. Upon the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was exhumed and found to contain both human and animal bones, however precise identification of the age and sex was not then possible [1]. Queen Elizabeth II continues to forbid further disturbance of the grave."

Answer 3

Because it's overwhelmingly probable.
The princes were a danger. The elder one was 12 years old. At 17 years old, the young Edward III had seized power way back in 1330. Edward V's father was only 18 when he seized the throne in 1461. If he hadn't known this anyway, Buckingham's rebellion in 1483 would have told Richard this.
We know that the rumours of murder were going round already in 1483.
Ricardians and holocaust deniers are cut from the same cloth.

Answer 4

Chances are he did, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The throne was illegally taken by the Tudors, so they villanised him to legitamise their own place on the throne. Todays royals are illegal, the true Plantagenant heir lives in Australia now. For him to be put on the throne, there'd have to be a revolution, so I don't expect it will happen.

Answer 5

I think he wasn't the one who physically killed them, but I do think it was done under his orders. He had more motive than anyone else, and it would have been easier for him to have access to them while they were in the Tower of London than it would have been for many others (though if I remember right, it was still not exactly buttoned up tight).

Answer 6

besides the fact that their isn't any organization info... the possibility that he had them smothered is physically powerful. He on my own had the objective, and modern-day wisdom approximately him shows he became an unsightly sufficient guy or woman to have ordered their murders.

Answer 7

On the death of Edward IV, on 9 April 1483, the late King's sons (Richard's young nephews), King Edward V, aged 12, and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, aged 9, were considered to be next in the order of succession. Appointed Lord Protector of the Realm in his brother's will, Richard was aware of a danger that the Woodvilles would isolate him and would use their influence over Edward V to consolidate their power at Richard's expense.

When the boy King's retinue was on its way from Wales to London, for his coronation, Richard and Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham joined them at Northampton. He had the king's guardian, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, (brother of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's Queen Consort) and other advisors arrested and taken to Pontefract Castle, allegedly for planning to assassinate Edward V. Richard then took Edward to stay at the Tower of London (then a royal palace), a move widely supported since much of the country distrusted the former queen's family. Richard called himself Lord Protector and was also made Chief Councillor (head of government).

John Morton, Bishop of Ely and later Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII, is considered by some to be an important source of the Tudor propaganda against Richard III. According to Sir Thomas More's History, which may be based in part on Morton's accounts, Lord Hastings (a regular visitor to the young Edward V in the Tower of London) was arrested for alleged treason on 13 June 1483 at a meeting of the Royal Council, at the Tower. A few minutes later, he is said to have been beheaded on Tower Green, a clear violation of his rights (i.e., execution without due process) as a Peer guaranteed under Magna Carta. It has been argued that Hastings, whose execution was the first recorded at the Tower of London, was indeed arrested on 13 June, but later formally charged with treason, tried, convicted and sentenced, and legally executed on 18 June; no record of such proceedings survives. Edward's younger brother, Richard, was removed to the Tower on 16 June, with his mother's consent.

It is thought that Hastings had allied himself with the Queen Dowager because of the rise in influence of Buckingham and what he saw as Richard's usurpation of the throne. Morton claimed to have been in the council room when Hastings was arrested, and may have been one of several men who were detained for participating in the conspiracy with Hastings.

Three other members of the alleged conspiracy: the queen's brother Lord Rivers, her second son Richard Grey, and another chamberlain Sir Thomas Vaughan — were also convicted and executed elsewhere. Jane (or Elizabeth) Shore, who had been a mistress of King Edward IV, and then of his step-son Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset, and was now Hastings's mistress, was convicted of only lesser offences and was made to do public penance and briefly imprisoned. Thomas Grey avoided prosecution in the conspiracy by going into sanctuary at Westminster with his mother.

John Morton is also thought to be the source of other accusations against Richard, notably:

* the murder of Henry VI
* the "private execution" of his brother George, Duke of Clarence
* the murder of his wife's first husband, Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales
* forcing Anne Neville, to marry him against her will
* killing Anne Neville so he could marry his niece, Elizabeth of York
* accusing Jane Shore and Elizabeth Woodville of witchcraft in withering his arm
* being illegitimate himself

Each of these stories first appears in writing either in Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III, believed by some to be based on Morton's account, or on the writings of someone else who had heard the stories (Historians are divided on the issue of Morton's importance as a source, some pointing out that More's own father was an Edwardian loyalist and well-connected in the government of the City of London). The question of whether these stories were true was of great interest to neither Morton nor More, history at that time being regarded as a branch of literature. It was customary for histories to also serve as propaganda on both sides, to support and strengthen the cause of a patron. Morton, having been arrested by Richard III, had fled to exile in Flanders. He only returned when Henry VII was on the throne and was quickly promoted.

On June 22, 1483, outside St Paul's Cathedral, a statement was read out on behalf of Richard declaring for the first time that he was taking the throne for himself. When the members of Parliament met on June 25, it apparently heard evidence from the Bishop of Bath that he had conducted a marriage or betrothal between Edward IV and one Lady Eleanor Talbot (or Butler) before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Since even a betrothal was a legally binding "pre-contract" in the customs of the time, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been bigamous, therefore all their children were illegitimate. Some of the proceedings of that Parliamentary session survive in a document known as Titulus Regius, which Parliament issued some months later explaining its actions and of which a single copy escaped the destruction of all copies of the Titulus Regius later ordered by Henry VII. The identity of the priest in question — thought to have been Edward IV's sometime Chancellor, Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells — is known from only one source, the French political commentator, Philippe de Commines. Titulus Regius also cited two further grounds upon which Edward IV's marriage had been invalid, namely that it was made "in a profane place" and that it was made "without the assent of the Lords".

Despite rumours that Richard's claims were true, evidence was lacking and it was generally accepted that Richard's principal motive for taking the crown was that he felt that his own power and wealth would be threatened under Edward V, who was presumably sympathetic to his Woodville relatives. However, a recently published theory asserts that Edward IV was illegitimate — see Was Edward illegitimate? for details — but hard evidence is lacking.

The disinherited Edward V and his brother Richard, who had joined him in the Tower of London, were never seen again after the summer of 1483. According to contemporary chroniclers, the two boys (known to history as "The Princes in the Tower") were already rumoured to be dead by the end of that year. Modern historians regard Richard III as the most likely culprit in the deaths of the princes, since they were under his care at the time of their disappearance and they presented a threat to his reign as long as they were alive, but the controversy continues to this day.