Richard III Club discussion

16 views
Hey everyone! Since no one has started posting yet I figured I better get the ball rolling!

Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

TheBohemianBookworm So lets talk about the age old question. Did Richard kill his nephew or not? If so what was his motivation or lack thereof? State your thoughts and lets debate it.


message 2: by Josephine (new)

Josephine D'Anvers (josephine_) Well, I'm actually writing a paper about Richard III at the moment, so this is quite interesting. I, myself think that Richard did indeed killed those boys, but I do not think he was as cold hearted as the Tudor propoganda believes him to be. It is important to know that Richard was a man of his time, and the wars of roses started when he was only 3 years old and ended after his dead, so the only period he knew was political instability, a tactic time, with his family in the middle of it. The death of his father will have changed him, certainly. On why he did kill the boys: Lancaster troops were coming , and the boys were so young that Elizabeth would reign till they came of age, and Elizabeth herself came from the Lancastrian side, and killing to secure the throne was not unheard of in those days, it was especially common under the reign of the Tudors. So, in my opinion, Richard did kill his nephews, but only so that the rest of his family wouldn't have died in vein.


message 3: by J.P. (new)

J.P. Reedman | 5 comments Hi. I am not certain at all one way or the other regarding the fate of princes (indeed what real proof they were killed? The remains found, puportedly, near the Tower stair were so deeply buried they are likely to be at least Roman! They are undated & unsexed!)Certainly, at that point, others had as much if not more to gain, by their deaths.And it is rather pointless to kill them without displaying the bodies, as that opened the doors to pretenders. Buckingham is mentioned as the perpetrator in several near contemporary documents both in England and on the continent and certainly his behaviour, culminating in rebellion, was odd. Whatever happened, I am certain he had some involvement.It is also interesting that Tudor never openly accused Richard of the deed. As for Warbeck, whoever he was I am convinced he was not just a boatman's son from Tournai!


message 4: by Kathy (new)

Kathy Martin | 3 comments I agree with J.P's reasoning. With the scanty facts available to us, I believe it is impossible to conclude with any degree of certainty what happened to the boys. One thing is certain, however - it was extremely convenient for Henry Tudor to have them out of the way, given that he needed to refute their illegitimacy in order to marry their sister. Yet if they were not illegitimate, their claim to the throne was infinitely better than his. Whereas Richard had been legally proclaimed King and therefore had no need to kill them.

My personal belief is that he had them spirited away somewhere - perhaps to one of his northern strongholds or perhaps overseas. It's interesting that for centuries people believed the deposed Edward II was murdered but recently, compelling evidence has come to light suggesting that he was allowed to leave England and live out his days in a remote Italian monastery. Richard was a deeply religious man with a genuine regard for his mortal soul. I simply don't believe such a man would be prepared to sanction the cold-blooded murder of his own nephews.


message 5: by J.P. (new)

J.P. Reedman | 5 comments Yes, absolutely. It seems so mad about Edward II, considering there was a body and a tomb, but many are seriously listening to this theory. I don't see the idea of the boys being sent away abroad as being out of the question. Certainly one of Richard's men was sent away on a secret mission to the continent at one time, with a 'no search' pass for the borders, taking with him a phenomenal amount of money. No one has adequately explained what this was for. Interesting too that George of Clarence at one time was thinking of sending his son Edward of Warwick to Burgundy when his relationship with Edwardbroke down utterly...and having a 'substitute' remain in the boy's place.


message 6: by Kathy (new)

Kathy Martin | 3 comments Off topic but regarding the murder or otherwise of Edward II, I can recommend Ian Mortimer's book, Edward III: The Perfect King. It makes a compelling case for the not-dead-but-living-abroad theory.


back to top