Body of Richard III identified

[Dauphin]

To be fair, they painted that one as a battle against the evil tyrant. Shouldn't forget that there was a previous war against Hussain that actually was justified, so the ground was already set.

1) They tried several different paints.
2) Political spin, or propaganda if you will, to justify a course of action and get people on side. Not the action of a dictator type at all.

[MikeH]

Winning the election might have been helped by the fact that the only real political opposition supported it too.

[Dr Strangelove]

The only ambiguity there is that Henry would have had incentive for the nephews to disappear as well, if Richard hadn't got round to it yet. Richard could possibly have found some hostage value for them alive - that wouldn't be totally obviated by their declaration as bastards. Odds are Richard was responsible for their death - even if not, he was guilty of enough regardless, but IMO it's not open and shut that Richard is directly responsible for their deaths.

IIRC there was a confession by one of his henchmen to the effect that R III ordered him to send the little angels back to heaven. He delegated the deed to a pair of his own underlings. More than a century later children's bones of the approximate age range were discovered buried under some stairs at the tower. Forensics of one of the skulls indicated that the little guy had probably been smothered with enough force to fracture some of the small bones around the nose.

[Ben Kenobi]

IIRC they got an actual confession from one of his henchmen, so yeah, he was a child-murderer.

Hrm? No. The first time that they knew definitively that they were dead was after, not before Bosworth.

[MichaeltheGreat]

IIRC they got an actual confession from one of his henchmen, so yeah, he was a child-murderer.

Anyone can get a confession. Especially with the methods used in those days.

[Alexander's Horse]

I thought the suspected bones of the brothers had been found recently.

[molly bloom]

IIRC they got an actual confession from one of his henchmen, so yeah, he was a child-murderer.

I think you mean Tyrell. He was a royal civil servant to Edward IV & Richard III, and on Richard's death he went to France, I think. He was pardoned by Henry VII, though, probably because Henry recognised the worth of someone who could bring in much-needed revenue for him. About twenty years or so after Bosworth, Tyrell fell into disfavour for some undisclosed reason, and was ordered back to England. He was duped into believing in a safe conduct pass, and once on board ship in the Channel, taken, imprisoned and executed.

Then Henry 'revealed' to someone else that Tyrell had confessed to Henry that he had been given orders by Richartd III to go to the Tower Of London when the Princes were supposedly imprisoned there, tell Lord Brackenbury who was Warden of the Tower that he was relieved of duty (for one night only!) and dispose of the Princes. Tyrell is then meant to have employed a couple of men to do this.

Conveniently, Brackenbury died at Bosworth, so was no longer around to contradict this miraculous discovery. And of course Tyrell was by now dead too...

As for the skeletons, there have been (at least) two sets of skeletons of young people recovered from within the Tower's precincts, and I think the skeleton of what at the time was thought to be a deformed human, but was apparently an ape from the Royal Menagerie which escaped and then was accidentally locked in a room.

The skeletons now said to be the Princes were thrown on a dung heap after they were first discovered during alterations in the 17th(?) Century. Then they were reinterred, then lost for a few years, then disinterred and reburied. The modern disinterment in the 1950s was done in the Abbey and not under controlled conditions. From what I can remember of the Professor who carried out the examinations, several of his comments carried a distinctly biased slant, and not towards Richard III.

It's worth recalling that Henry VII and his mother and members of the Yorkist faction all had reasons to see that the children of Edward IV were disinherited or dead if Richard was killed, as Richard's sole legitimate son had died before Battle of Bosworth.

I think the 1950s' autopsy/forensic examination was itself investigated in the late 80s or early 90s, possibly in connection with a documentary about a trial of Richard III on the evidence now available. I think the article may have been in 'Nature' or 'New Scientist'....

[Dr Strangelove]

The last report that they were alive was in 1483.

There was a set of remains discovered beneath some stairs at the tower, descriptions stated that they were clad in velvet. The bones were interred, then dis-interred for study in the 1930's. Photographs of the bones were re-examined in the 1980's and the conclusion was that the children were of the appropriate age range, one 11 to 13, the other 9 to 12. One skull showed blood stains and fractures thought to be consistant with smothering.

Another suspicious set of remains are those lying in two unmarked small lead-lined coffins adjacent to Edwad IV's crypt. Those coffins have never been opened, so nothing is known of the identity of their occupants.

[Ben Kenobi]

The last report that they were alive was in 1483.

And the first one who announced they were dead was Henry VII. Convenient, eh?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's worth recalling that Henry VII and his mother and members of the Yorkist faction all had reasons to see that the children of Edward IV were disinherited or dead if Richard was killed, as Richard's sole legitimate son had died before Battle of Bosworth.

Yep.

Edward III King of England
>Edward the Black Prince, Prince of Wales
>>Richard II King of England(1400)
>Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence
>>Philippa of Clarence 5th Countess of Ulster
>>>Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March
>>>>Edmund Mortimer 5th Earl of March
>>>>Anne Mortimer Countess of Cambridge
>>>>>Richard Plantagenet 3rd Duke of York(1460)
>John of Gaunt 1st Duke of Lancaster
>>Henry IV King of England
>>>Henry V King of England
>>>>Henry VI King of England(1471)
>>>>>Edward of Westminster Prince of Wales(1471)
>Edmund of Langley 1st Duke of York
>>Edward of Langley 2nd Duke of York
>>Richard Plantagenet 3rd Earl of Cambridge
>>>Richard Plantagenet 3rd Duke of York(1460)
>>>>Edward IV of York King of England(1483)
>>>>>Edward V of York King of England(1483)
>>>>>Richard of York (1483)
>>>>>George of York 1st Duke of Bedford (1479)
>>>>>ELIZABETH OF YORK
>>>>Richard III of York King of England (1485)
>>>>>Edward Plantagenet Prince of Wales (1484)
>Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester
>>Humprey of Woodstock
>>Anne of Gloucester Countess of Stafford
>>>Humphrey Stafford 1st Duke of Buckingham
>>>>Humphrey Stafford 1st Earl of Stafford
>>>>>Henry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham (1483)
>>>>>>Edward Stafford (Executed Henry VII)
>>>>>>>Henry Stafford 1st Baron Stafford(SURVIVED)
>>>>>>Henry Stafford (Executed Henry VII)

Look at the birth order here - Edward IV King of England of York has a claim back to Edward III, and was the senior-line claimant through male-preference Primogeniture, through Lionel of Antwerp and with the death of Henry VI, the senior male line descendent from Edward III through Edmund of Langley.

Henry VII's claim though his wife, Elizabeth of York was subsidiary to all the other York princes. within 2 years, 5 of the male Yorkists were dead, Edward IV, Edward V, Prince Richard, Prince Edward(son of Richard) and Richard III. Leaving, ta, dah - Elizabeth of York, now senior line through male preference.

Henry VII also wasted no time going after the Staffords, who had a direct claim through Woodstock, executing both duke of Buckingham, but left the Baron Stafford alive.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yeah, but one of the major reasons for the revolt against Richard were the rumors of his child murdering ways. The French were convinced to assist Henry Tudor by the prince's physician. Other allies rallied to Henry's side for the sake of the children. If the princes were alive in 1485 wouldn't the sensible thing for Richard to do be to bring the princes out into the open in front of the French ambassador and perhaps some high ranking clergy? He could have brought Edward to a window at the tower, keeping Richard out of sight with the promise to Edward that an unkind word would result in little Richard getting his throat slit.
Frankly, declaring them illegitimate pretty much was a sentence of death. If they were illegitimate then they were pretenders to the throne. The penalty for pretending to the throne in those days was death.

[kentonio]

Pretty tricky times all round really. We think of Kings and Queens killing off kids and random family members with horror (and rightly so), but then you remember that those kids and relatives were often used as standard bearers to overthrow the Kings/Queens which meant death for them and their children and families. Wierd to think that Game of Thrones is a lot more fact than fantasy in many ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the princes were alive in 1485 wouldn't the sensible thing for Richard to do be to bring the princes out into the open

True.The greater evidence is that Richard himself wrote in 1483, that the Princes had been dead by that time, though not by his hand.

However, it's not quite that simple. There are sources showing that Buckingham was responsible for their deaths. And Buckingham as I showed above, also had a claim to the English throne. Three possibilities arise.

One, that Richard III would order Buckingham to murder the princes. I don't think this makes very much sense. Richard has nothing to gain by their death. He's got his eldest son, at this point, still alive, and his eldest son would hope to inherit before the princes ever would. There's simply no justification in 1483 for Richard acting in this way.

Two, that Buckingham acted in his own desires and his own motives to murder the Princes. This is plausible. As shown above, Buckingham had a strong claim to the English throne, but only if something happened to the princes. The question then, arises, why Richard would put the care of the Princes into someone that he didn't trust. Buckingham had, until then been a loyal soldier to Richard.

Three, that Henry VII was involved. Richard did not put Henry in any position of authority with the princes in the Tower. Nor does he name Buckingham, as would be expected should he know that Buckingham were responsible for it. Richard did execute Buckingham, which makes sense if Richard believed him to be responsible. However, again, we don't have evidence from other people that Buckingham killed to place this burden on him. However, Henry VII is a very different story. After his accession, he eliminated almost every other Plantagenet in a systematic fashion. I think the evidence is pretty strong that there are so many deaths over the course of just 2 years that Something was going on here - and Henry VII was very adept and willing and motivated to kill his own kinsmen to gain the throne.

So did Buckingham do it? Or did Henry pay him to do it for him? Or did the assassin paid by Henry kill them and frame Buckingham thus ensuring:

1, division between the Staffords and York which was fatal to Richard III. He was defeated as Bosworth after the defection of his allies and the lies that Richard had killed his wife.
2, execution of Stafford, a potential claimant to the throne.
3, killing off the princes in the tower.

So, in one move, he manages to destroy all his rivals.

[Dr Strangelove]

It's fairly well established that the princes made it to London and were placed in the tower. Was Buckingham in a position to have the deed done under his own power? If someone other than himself had the boys snuffed then why did Richard keep the dirty deed a secret? The tower was a heavily guarded fortress. Surely someone would have seen the murderer entering and leaving. Maybe the appropriate question is who was guarding the place and to whom did they owe their loyalty? Was Buckingham in a position to place his own men in charge of the tower?

[Alexander's Horse]

a lot of people simply vanished in the Tower of London over the centuries - I wonder if a serious archeological dig has ever been done - probably not - literally too many skeletons in the closet