Princes in the tower?

Question

why are there so many different points of view and interpretaitons about what happened to the princes in the tower. you know... the boys who went missing and everyone at first suspected richard III.

please write something good. any bit will help.

:) Thank you!

Answer 1

Because the bodies of Edward V and his younger brother Richard were never found, so it is impossible to determine for certain what happened and who was responsible.

Richard III is blamed by far most commonly because he seized the throne after Edward V's disappearance, as he wanted the throne as soon as his brother, Edward IV died. Henry Tudor (later the VII) is sometimes blamed due to the warring between the Yorks and Lancasters. Also, the Duke of Buckingham is a suspect as well due to a cryptic manuscript that implies the princes were imprisoned on the advice of the duke. Still, even if he did advise it, Richard III is almost certainly the one directly responsible.

Edit: True, Richard was in power before Edward V, but he was not crowned until after the princes were put in the tower. Edward V was proclaimed (but not crowned) king first and then 'disappeared.' If Richard was not responsible and Henry was, explain why Richard didn't use this as ammunition against the Tudors?

The murder would have been necessary for Richard to prevent Edward from gathering barons to his cause, raising an army, or even obtaining foreign assistance when he reached adulthood. And Richard was hardly an 'exemplary' character anyway, thanks to his failings during the Wars of the Roses. He may have been the best option for the Yorkists, but he wasn't good enough.

Answer 2

Amidst all the murders and maybe murders it is amazing how certain crimes retain their ability to shock & intrigue. At the time of their disappearence the aledged murder of the Princes was a rallying pint, one more reason to rise up against Richard. Richard most likely did not know how to handle the situation. Most likely the boys were murdered by a well meaning friend who could always argue that he 'thought' that was what Richard wanted. If Richard wanted the boys dead you would think he could simply produce their corpses and claim sickness took their lives. All evidence indicates that Richard was caught by surprise and much like another Richard who mismanaged the actions of his henchmen at The Watergate, Richard the Third could not figure out an exit strategy that would appease everyone or anyone. Richard took the throne with scant support, kept losing support and when reports of the Princes murder began to circulate was fated to face open rebellion. That deliverance came at the hands of Henry Tudor is one of histories ironies.
Why does the story of The Prices continue to fascinate. Many people imagine they too could be the boys in the Tower, destined for Greatness, brought down by treachery, foully murdered - - - their dreams their hopes their ambitions snuffed out.
A final note about Richard the Third. For all of his 'villainy,' he bears the distinction of facing exstinction bravely becoming the last English King killed in Combat leading a charge against his enemies.

Peace---------

Answer 3

It's just like the Kennedy assassination, isn't it? Lots of theories, interpretations of the known facts, and as many points of view as there are people, because no one who is alive knows what happened, and we will never know.

Richard III is awarded the guilt for their fate by many based upon people, like Sir Thomas More, who wrote about the situation many, many years after Richard III died, and who was a sycophant of the Tudors, even though Henry VIII eventually had him executed. Shakespeare wrote his play about Richard III based upon More's possibly and probably erroneous reports and Shakespeare was writing during the reign of the last Tudor, Elizabeth I.

Over the years so much care has been taken to blacken the name of Richard III and to try to make facts about him fit the descriptions of More and Shakespeare that portraits thought to be of him have even been altered to try to make it appear as if he were deformed by a possible hunchback, although no contemporary reports mention this and he was an active and fine soldier and warrior, as documented by historical fact; roles difficult for a hunchback in those days, or any days, I think.

I personally think Richard III innocent of guilt for the fate of the princes and that the most logical person responsible for their probable murders is Henry VII. To understand the reasons for my point of view among the many, read "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey or visit the website of the Richard III Society, made up of people determined to restore Richard's exemplary reputation to him.

NOTE TO PAMPERSGUY: Richard III seized the throne before, not after, the disappearance of Edward V. Edward V and his brother were declared illegitimate by a governing council due to a precontract of marriage entered into by their father, which rendered their father's marriage to their mother null and void, making it unnecessary for Richard to murder them.

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO TL: They were not twins! Whatever gave you that idea? I believe there was a three years difference in their ages.

Answer 4

There is no proof that Richard III murdered his nephews but a stack of evidence makes him the prime suspect. Richard certainly had most to gain by the disappearance of a potential threat to his throne.

There is more at this link:

Answer 5

Richard III, to blame as charged. although that's not necessary to have self belief he geared in direction of the crown from the commencing up. He had to do away with the Woodvilles or they might have performed a similar to him. yet Edward V grew to become into fullyyt for the Woodvilles, and so Richard desperate that he necessary the crown, and eradicated Hastings to do it. yet at 12 Edward grew to become into nonetheless a probability. bear in mind that Edward III had overthrown Mortimer on the age of 17. So while Buckingham rebelled, Richard desperate to have Edward and his brother killed. the only reason historians incorporate any doubt is to provide up individuals of the Richard III Society sending them dogshit interior the placed up.

Answer 6

The first suspects in foul play are family members! The boys were murdered. By whom? Ultimately it doesn't matter. Richard took power and people who didn't like that took it away from him.

Answer 7

you have to remember that back in those times it really was like playing the game telephone you tell someone something and along the way it was altered so there is the reason why all the stories were diffrent and different speculations facinating story though sad. I have a interest in that time era

Answer 8

I don't think there are a bunch of interpretations. Richard III had them executed so they wouldn't be in competition for the crown.

I think Ricahrd III's people were the only one's denying it. Also, other Yorkists would have tried to defend richard III.

Answer 9

This is one of history's reat unsolved mysteries.The idea that Ritchard lll imprisoned the twins7evetually had them mrdered is pure Shakepere,by which I mean to say that he perpetuated the rumor.It has never been proven

Answer 10

er that would have put the then monarchy at risk - wouldn't be the first secret assasination would it