England had just spent over 150 years at war, including nearly 30 due in part to the King having come to the throne as a minor. It is no wonder then that they parliament (yes they had one then) loathed the idea of another minor.
It should also be noted that the reason why the princes were taken to the tower was because it was from there that the new monarch set out for his coronation so it wasn't the sinister set up many ascribe.
That the strong men of the country wanted another strong man to lead them isn't evidence of disloyalty to the princes but good sense at the time.
I would describe him as a pragmatist.
For all those who say Richard was a loyal brother. I wonder if they could tell Edward 1V everything Richard did after he died and asked him that.
Richard had his brother's children declared illegitimate, strippled of their titles and lands, after his brother entrusted them to him?
And as for the whole, they need a strong king to avoid war. I am sorry how was getting rid of those boys not going to lead to war. It absolutely led to war.
If he had cared about his country, he would have done his best to secure the kingdom, and rule as Lord Protector.
As for whether he killed the boys, its hard to know what happened, but the idea that this boys weren't a threat to him was ridiculous. An Adult Edward V absolutely would be. The idea that they weren't going to be symbols for rebellion when things went wrong, is ridiculous.
And he gave Henry Tudor the path to the throne.
At the end of those day, those boys were in his care. Not Henry Tudor's. He was the one with access to them, who swore to protect them. And he left them vulnerable
Last edited: