Edward V (1470-1483?) and Prince Richard (1473-1483?): the Princes in the Tower

[bekalc]

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

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I totally agree with you on all points, bekalc. He left those boys vulnerable all right. Their prison in the Tower would soon turn into their tomb after Richard's henchman murdered them.

 

[bekalc]

Yes, I totally agree with you on all points, bekalc. He left those boys vulnerable all right. Their prison in the Tower would soon turn into their tomb after Richard's henchman murdered them.

Right. When did those boys disappear-under Richard. Even if someone else killed them, Richard was suppose to provide proper guard.

The idea that he got them declared illegitimate so they were no threat is ridiculous. Not everyone agreed with Richard's actions. People supported Henry for their sister, they would have revolted for those boys.

 

[Denville]

well obviously "someone else" killed them.. RIchard was hardly going to do it himself.. but he clealary arranged for them to be killed when they were in his protection

 

[bekalc]

well obviously "someone else" killed them.. RIchard was hardly going to do it himself.. but he clealary arranged for them to be killed when they were in his protection

Exactly. I mean wasn't access to them heavily regulated.

I don't get the need to make Richard the good guy and Henry VII the bad one.

Even if you take aside the murder of the young boys what about stealing his nephews inheritance. And the whole country couldn't handle a regency...

Well Richard's actions plunged England to war..

And we don't need to prove he killed them beyond the shadow of a doubt. Nobody's putting him in prison. We only have to look at who had both the motive and the means. (And he ha way more means that Henry Tudor his mother)

 

[Iluvbertie]

The whole of this argument is based largely on personal perceptions.

There is no evidence that the princes were actually killed by anyone.

Henry VII never made that claim himself. He wasn't until very late in his reign that Thomas More started that rumour but he had been raised in the household of a man who hated Richard.

As for 'plunging the country into war' - given the fact that the country have been at war for most of the previous 150 years - 116 against France and then virtually 30 years of civil war (largely caused by the fact that Henry VI wasn't able to properly take on the role of king and partly due to the fact that he was raised as king from a baby and had been a pawn all his life).

The government didn't want a repeat of that and so declared the children of Edward IV as illegitimate thus making Richard III the legitimate King. Remember that Richard had been a loving uncle to his nephews and his own brother trusted him to raise them properly. Was Edward VI such a bad judge of character or was it more the fact that he knew Richard would do what was best for the boys.

If the princes were murdered by Richard why did their mother allow her daughters to go to court? She could easily have kept them away from Richard by sending them to a nunnery and thus make them 'out of reach'.

It should also be remembered that the girls were in the line of succession ahead of Richard so why not kill them as well as the princes. Killing the princes didn't remove any threats to his throne at all as there still the princesses.

Yes I know Henry VIII wanted a son - but that was because he wanted a son. There was no bar to a legitimate daughter from becoming Queen in her own right.

The entire arguments against Richard have so many holes in it.

There is no proof that the princes were dead when Henry VII became King (they may have been but they may very well have still been alive) in which case Henry most certainly does need to kill them, particularly once he marries Elizabeth - after having the children of Edward IV declared legitimate again. Once he does that then his claim, even as Elizabeth's husband, has no basis as the princes are ahead of him.

Do we even know that the princes died in the Tower? No we don't.

There are suggestions that at least one of the princes was smuggled to France to a relative there where he died (that was Richard) while Edward may have died from illness - he was reportedly not the strongest any way.

In addition, it should be noted that the princes' mother claimed that one of the 'pretenders' to the throne that emerged later in Henry's reign was in fact her own younger son. Now if it was well known, within the court at least, that the princes were indeed dead and had been murdered by Richard why would she do that - claim a son who wasn't hers was more entitled to the throne than her own daughter and grandson?

 

[bekalc]

The rumors that the Princes died did not start with Thomas Moore. They were going on during Richard's reign. They were last seen one a month after Richard's coronation.

If they were not died, why didn't Richard say something? He never denied they weren't dead and in fact his agents told other people they thought he was dead.

Why would Richard let those two boys go free into France, where they could raise up an army to over throw them. That does not make sense. They weren't three year olds. They were boys old enough to know who they were.

And Edward 1V was clearly a bad judge of Richard's character, because Richard's actions clearly weren't best for the boys.

And in fact the writings for Dominic Mancini who was a spy for France, (so not a Tudor apologist) writes that speaking to Edward V doctor the last person to see him in 1483, that poor Edward V "was like a victim prepared for Sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him, Already there had been suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether however, he has been done away with and by what manner of death, so fa r I have not at all discovered."

The poor Edward. Yes, his father made a wonderful choice. Once again this was a French spy saying this and writing this during the time. Not a Tudor apologist. Nobody thought Richard's intention towards the young boys were pure.

 

[Denville]

Its pretty likely that he had them killed. THey were almost certainly dead before Richard lost his crown. and that was something that while people didn't expect Kings to behave like choir boys, repelled the English people.. the killing of innocent children,.

 

[bekalc]

There are foreign accounts that say grown men were openly crying in the streets over the fate of the two boys they were seen less and less. They remembered Henry VI.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

well obviously "someone else" killed them.. RIchard was hardly going to do it himself.. but he clealary arranged for them to be killed when they were in his protection

So Denville you are of the belief that Richard did have them eliminated? I have always said that he did have means motive and access and have disputed anyone who thinks having them declared illegitimate was somehow just accepted by everyone. As Henry VII proved something written by a king can be unwritten by the next and Henry did just that.
I never thought that Richard should have worked to prove they weren't dead if they really were alive under his rule. Didn't Henry VII do that with the Earl of Warwick when it was claimed the later was dead?

I do have to giggle and Richard apologists who bemoan that he was loyal to his brother; so loyal that he stole the crown from his brothers son, imprisoned his brothers son, claimed his brother was a bigamist, and claimed both his brothers were bastards. Richard seems to have only been loyal to you while your living.

 

[Denville]

Well yes I do find it odd that he was considered to be so "loyal" and it was part of his motto.. when he (even if he didn't kill the boys) took the throne, imprisoned them, called his nephews bastards and his own brothers as well etc.!!

 

[Curryong]

Well, he certainly wasn't 'loyal' to his elder nephew, and yes I'm one who believes he did kill the boys, or rather ordered them to be killed.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Edward V's coronation had been scheduled for May of 1483. It was postponed. Was a new date scheduled?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Did Prince Richard of York become a bricklayer?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457528

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Was it necessary that Parliament had to declare Edward V illegitimate on June 26, 1483 so that Richard, Duke of Gloucester could be the rightful king?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Were Edward and his younger brother still alive on that date?

 

[Curryong]

I don’t think anyone knew (apart from Richard, the possible assassins and presumably the Constable of the Tower of London) where either of the young brothers were by that date or whether they had been done away with already.

All that we have now really is evidence that in the Spring they were seen playing happily by several people on the Green near the White Tower and gradually as summer came they were withdrawn to quarters inside the Tower and were seen less and less. By June they had not been seen at all.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

After King Edward V was proclaimed king in 1483, why was Earl Rivers arrested?

 

[TLLK]

To limit the power of Edward V's maternal family.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episo...-investigates-series-1-3-princes-in-the-tower

Haven't watched this yet, as it is newly listed - 22 May, 2022.

 

[An Ard Ri]

After King Edward V was proclaimed king in 1483, why was Earl Rivers arrested?

The Woodvilles were very unpopular with the nobility who viewed them as upstarts.
The 1st Earl Rivers and his second son Sir John Woodville were executed in 1469.
It was Richard, Duke of Gloucester who had the second Earl arrested and later also executed.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Is the Mystery of The Princes in the Tower SOLVED?

 

[Blog Real]

A late-16th- or early-17th-century imagining of Edward
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/King_Edward_V_from_NPG.jpg

King Edward V and the Duke of York in the Tower of London by Paul Delaroche. The theme of innocent children awaiting an uncertain fate was a popular one amongst 19th-century painters.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/DelarocheKingEdward.jpg