• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Princes in the Tower

What happened to the twp princes?

  • Henry Tudor (or his mother) had them killed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Somebody else had them killed (please state who)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The princes were not killed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please state)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,605
Reaction score
26,426
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

I was watching season 2 of the Hollow Crown and the final part was Shakespeare's Richard III. Basically Richard's brother King Edward dies suddenly and he becomes lord protector and the safety of his brother's two young sons (Edward V, the future king) was entrusted to him. Richard later becomes king and he has the two boys detained in the tower of London where they are never seen again.

This is one of the great unsolved mysteries in history. Thomas Moore wrote that Richard had the boys killed because they were a threat to his reign. There have also been rumors that the princes did in fact escape, or that it might have been Henry Tudor (or even his mother) who had them killed after he defeated and killed Richard III in battle to become king.

I personally think Richard did have the boys killed, simply because they were a threat to him. What do you think?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

I was watching season 2 of the Hollow Crown and the final part was Shakespeare's Richard III. Basically Richard's brother King Edward dies suddenly and he becomes lord protector and the safety of his brother's two young sons (Edward V, the future king) was entrusted to him. Richard later becomes king and he has the two boys detained in the tower of London where they are never seen again.

This is one of the great unsolved mysteries in history. Thomas Moore wrote that Richard had the boys killed because they were a threat to his reign. There have also been rumors that the princes did in fact escape, or that it might have been Henry Tudor (or even his mother) who had them killed after he defeated and killed Richard III in battle to become king.

I personally think Richard did have the boys killed, simply because they were a threat to him. What do you think?

When the bones of Richard III were found under a car park over four years ago there was a wave of pro-Ricardian sentiment. Which came down to 'there is no proof that he killed his nephews'. That seems fai, so I will refrain from jumping to any of the conclusions presented.
 
When the bones of Richard III were found under a car park over four years ago there was a wave of pro-Ricardian sentiment. Which came down to 'there is no proof that he killed his nephews'. That seems fai, so I will refrain from jumping to any of the conclusions presented.

Thanks for nothing then. :roll:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

I was watching season 2 of the Hollow Crown and the final part was Shakespeare's Richard III. Basically Richard's brother King Edward dies suddenly and he becomes lord protector and the safety of his brother's two young sons (Edward V, the future king) was entrusted to him. Richard later becomes king and he has the two boys detained in the tower of London where they are never seen again.

This is one of the great unsolved mysteries in history. Thomas Moore wrote that Richard had the boys killed because they were a threat to his reign. There have also been rumors that the princes did in fact escape, or that it might have been Henry Tudor (or even his mother) who had them killed after he defeated and killed Richard III in battle to become king.

I personally think Richard did have the boys killed, simply because they were a threat to him. What do you think?

I had always understood that Richard was a rather unpleasant chap that was not above a murder. The princes were a danger to him. Occam would probably put his cash on murder.
 
I had always understood that Richard was a rather unpleasant chap that was not above a murder. The princes were a danger to him. Occam would probably put his cash on murder.

Thats exactly the way I look at it. Richard had the motive, and had the means since he controlled access to the tower. It's obvious he needed to cement his rule and make sure his son would succeed him with no rival claimants.
 
I've been fascinated by this mystery almost my whole life. Did Richard III Kill the Princes in the Tower?

From the UK's Independent:

One area where no researcher will be allowed to investigate is the Henry VII Lady Chapel in Westminster Abbey – where the bones said to belong to the princes were interred by Charles II four years after the discovery in 1674 of two children’s skeletons. The remains were found by workmen 10ft under the staircase leading to the chapel of the White Tower.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...olved-after-more-than-500-years-10466190.html

I think that Richard III probably did have the little princes killed; this would have been the sensible, smart solution.


More about the pretender, Perkin Warbeck, and this author says the princes weren't murdered: http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-t...inces/were-the-princes-in-the-tower-murdered/
 
I've been fascinated by this mystery almost my whole life. Did Richard III Kill the Princes in the Tower?

From the UK's Independent:

One area where no researcher will be allowed to investigate is the Henry VII Lady Chapel in Westminster Abbey – where the bones said to belong to the princes were interred by Charles II four years after the discovery in 1674 of two children’s skeletons. The remains were found by workmen 10ft under the staircase leading to the chapel of the White Tower.

The Princes in the Tower: Will the ultimate cold case finally be solved after more than 500 years? | The Independent

I think that Richard III probably did have the little princes killed; this would have been the sensible, smart solution.

More about the pretender, Perkin Warbeck, and this author says the princes weren't murdered: Were the “Princes in the Tower” Murdered? | Richard III Society – American Branch
 
The Tudors were masters of spin and propaganda.

It is well within the scope of their abilities to delete any mention of the boys from history and create the story of their deaths.

Richard was very well liked by those he ruled.... seemed a very personally brave and honourable chap..... Which is ofr course why he lost.
 
The Tudors were masters of spin and propaganda.

It is well within the scope of their abilities to delete any mention of the boys from history and create the story of their deaths.

.

But the two princes were nowhere to be seen by the time Henry Tudor beat Richard in the battlefield.

Richard was very well liked by those he ruled.... seemed a very personally brave and honourable chap..... Which is ofr course why he lost
He probably was, and I'm not a fan of either the Tudors or him, but looking at it objectively, killing the princes was the logical thing for him to do if he was to cement his claim to the throne.
 
But the two princes were nowhere to be seen by the time Henry Tudor beat Richard in the battlefield.

He probably was, and I'm not a fan of either the Tudors or him, but looking at it objectively, killing the princes was the logical thing for him to do if he was to cement his claim to the throne.

I love the Plantagenets and Tudors, and I can see why Henry Tudor would find getting rid of the little boys who were closer to the throne. But the fact is that Richard III locked them up in the Tower, and they were then never seen again. And another fact is that one of his men confessed on his deathbed to having done the deed (by smothering) at Richard's behest.

Being able to perform DNA analysis on the bones discovered under the stairs in the 1600's and reburied in the chapel might solve the mystery. But this is apparently not going to be allowed.
 
But the two princes were nowhere to be seen by the time Henry Tudor beat Richard in the battlefield.


He probably was, and I'm not a fan of either the Tudors or him, but looking at it objectively, killing the princes was the logical thing for him to do if he was to cement his claim to the throne.

Yes, but we only have the histories that the Tudors have left us. The princes could have been around but simply had their records removed.

The other thing about those princes being alive is that it would make Richard less of a target for assination. If it is just him on the throne and with him gone it is up for grabs for anybody with a very weak claim to the throne (the Tudors) then the price on his head is very high. With the princes alive his death does not mean that Henry Tudor is able to be king.

Perhaps the person most threatened by the princes was Henry.
 

Yes, but we only have the histories that the Tudors have left us. The princes could have been around but simply had their records removed.

The other thing about those princes being alive is that it would make Richard less of a target for assination. If it is just him on the throne and with him gone it is up for grabs for anybody with a very weak claim to the throne (the Tudors) then the price on his head is very high. With the princes alive his death does not mean that Henry Tudor is able to be king.

Perhaps the person most threatened by the princes was Henry.

Henry had no influence until he returned to England in 1485 though, by that time there was no trace of the princes.

If we look at the timeline Richard is the most likely suspect:

April 1483: King Edward IV dies. Richard named lord protector and sends the two princes to the tower- for their safety.
June 1483 was when Edward V was supposed to be crowned but his father's marriage to his mother is declared invalid, making the two boys illegitimate.
July 1483: Richard is immediately crowned
August 1483: last time the two boys were ever seen in public.

Henry Tudor didnt land in the UK until August 1485.

This means that there was a two-year interval in which the boys were never seen again. Richard had his own son who he had planned to succeed him but the boy died in 1484, a year after the princes disappeared. If the two princes were alive then surely someone would have spoken about them.
 
Henry had no influence until he returned to England in 1485 though, by that time there was no trace of the princes.

If we look at the timeline Richard is the most likely suspect:

April 1483: King Edward IV dies. Richard named lord protector and sends the two princes to the tower- for their safety.
June 1483 was when Edward V was supposed to be crowned but his father's marriage to his mother is declared invalid, making the two boys illegitimate.
July 1483: Richard is immediately crowned
August 1483: last time the two boys were ever seen in public.

Henry Tudor didnt land in the UK until August 1485.

This means that there was a two-year interval in which the boys were never seen again. Richard had his own son who he had planned to succeed him but the boy died in 1484, a year after the princes disappeared. If the two princes were alive then surely someone would have spoken about them.

My point is that if there were records of them during that time the records could have been deleted by the Turdors at some point.

There is also the possibility that after the victory of the Stanleys, who installed Henry, loyal servants spirted away the princes and then told the new powers that the boys had been killed by Richard.

I obviously don't know. But at this distance there will never be any possibility of knowing really.
 
My point is that if there were records of them during that time the records could have been deleted by the Turdors at some point.


I find that to be very unlikely. If the princes were alive, people would have talked about them and there would have been witnesses and testimonies. There was no way Henry Tudor could have censored any of that. Once the news spreads out there was no way of ever erasing it from people's memories.

There is also the possibility that after the victory of the Stanleys, who installed Henry, loyal servants spirted away the princes and then told the new powers that the boys had been killed by Richard.
If it happened the news would have surely gotten out. The fact is nobody ever heard from the two boys a month after Richard's coronation. That would have only happened if they were killed and their bodies disposed of.
I obviously don't know. But at this distance there will never be any possibility of knowing really.
Well as nota bene said, the discovery of the two skeletons at the tower could shed some light into it if they did do DNA testing like what they did with Richard's bones after they discovered it. Sadly it seems the German lady is blocking that from happening- for reasons known only to herself.
 
When the Richard III Society and the BBC requested disinterment back in 1003 and Channel 4 tried again in 1995, the Dean of Westminister refused this and for reasons that make sense. Quoted in the Telegraph:

“There are others buried in the abbey whose identity is somewhat uncertain, including Richard II, and allowing these bones to be examined could well set a precedent for other requests.”

He also pointed out that a "sample of bone (skin/hair/tissue) from a known individual related to the princes would be required, and that almost certainly means opening a second tomb in the Abbey or elsewhere."

..."And what would we have gained, other than to satisfy our curiosity in one area. It would not bring us any nearer the truth of the affair."

Carbon dating would in any case shed no light on the cause of death, nor who had killed the princes, it was argued. Princes in Tower will not be dug up - Telegraph
 
When the Richard III Society and the BBC requested disinterment back in 1003 and Channel 4 tried again in 1995, the Dean of Westminister refused this and for reasons that make sense. Quoted in the Telegraph:

“There are others buried in the abbey whose identity is somewhat uncertain, including Richard II, and allowing these bones to be examined could well set a precedent for other requests.”

He also pointed out that a "sample of bone (skin/hair/tissue) from a known individual related to the princes would be required, and that almost certainly means opening a second tomb in the Abbey or elsewhere."

..."And what would we have gained, other than to satisfy our curiosity in one area. It would not bring us any nearer the truth of the affair."

Carbon dating would in any case shed no light on the cause of death, nor who had killed the princes, it was argued. Princes in Tower will not be dug up - Telegraph

Boo! I demand they be dug up and tested! If the remains are somebody else so what? they can be placed in another grave or in a museum! I bet the German lady has some secrets of her own which is why she supports the refusal. ;)
 
Darn. I thought this was a Princess and the Pea or a Queen and the Bean thread. Figured a thread like that would devolve into a discussion of the relative virtues of "My Pillow"... and Trump and the Russians, naturally. Speaking of academics though - how 'bout them Steelers?
 
Boo! I demand they be dug up and tested! If the remains are somebody else so what? they can be placed in another grave or in a museum! I bet the German lady has some secrets of her own which is why she supports the refusal. ;)

The point that this would set a bad precedent is a good one. Can't have researchers disinterring historical figures all the time. In the case of the little princes, somebody else would have to be disinterred--at least one other person--just to have DNA for comparison, and as the Dean of Westminister said, determining whether these are the boys' bones still wouldn't solve the whodunit.

Sigh, but we would at least we would know what happened to them (not the cause of death but, rather, that they were killed and that the pretender(s) were just that).

As for Queen Elizabeth, I'm not aware that she objected to Prince Phillip providing his DNA so that the Romanovs could at last be identified.
 
The point that this would set a bad precedent is a good one. Can't have researchers disinterring historical figures all the time. In the case of the little princes, somebody else would have to be disinterred--at least one other person--just to have DNA for comparison, and as the Dean of Westminister said, determining whether these are the boys' bones still wouldn't solve the whodunit.

Sigh, but we would at least we would know what happened to them (not the cause of death but, rather, that they were killed and that the pretender(s) were just that).

As for Queen Elizabeth, I'm not aware that she objected to Prince Phillip providing his DNA so that the Romanovs could at last be identified.

Damn the precedent! It must be done for I need to know what really happened (and so do a lot of other people I bet)! :2razz:

As far as the German lady's objections, she must have a hidden secret on her side of the family perhaps? ;)
 
Wasn't there an uncle of the Queen Mum who was hidden for decades at Frogmore? And a mentally challenged cousin that nobody ever talked about?

Laughing about your "Damn the precedent!" because I selfishly feel the same way--I wanna know!
 
Thats exactly the way I look at it. Richard had the motive, and had the means since he controlled access to the tower. It's obvious he needed to cement his rule and make sure his son would succeed him with no rival claimants.

One thing is for sure, the boys never left the tower alive, if they had survived, I am quite sure one or both would have attempted to reclaim the crown in adulthood.
 
Back
Top Bottom