I remember being
taught at school that Richard III killed the Princes (because this apparently
seemed the most likely explanation). However, on looking into the case, it
seems to me that he was quite possibly the least likely candidate – what would
Richard have had to gain from having his nephews killed? After they were
declared illegitimate by the Titulus Regius they were no threat to him so why kill them?
(Nowadays the main
detracting fact about his reign seems to be this tyrannical act – this wouldn't have been different then & Richard was no fool)
Neither of the princes
were seen after August 1483 (when Richard was away on progress) so I don’t
believe that they survived Richard’s reign but I don’t think that means he was
responsible for their deaths. Although nor do I believe Margaret Beaufort or
Henry VII had a hand in it. For a start, I don’t think either would have had
the opportunity (although had the Princes survived Richard’s reign, I doubt
they would have survived Henry’s given his treatment of the Duke of Clarence’s son –
Edward, Earl of Warwick).
For me, the finger of
suspicion points firmly at Buckingham – he had the motive, the opportunity and
(quite possibly) the means given his position as a powerful, wealthy and
influential man – he was, after all, the second largest landowner in England after Richard.
Henry
Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, like
the Yorkist monarchs, was a direct descendant of one of the sons of Edward III
(in his case, John of Gaunt). He had close familial links with many other royal
families and, quite frankly, had a good claim to the throne. The Princes' disappearance tallies with Richard III being away on progress – giving
Buckingham opportunity to arrange their deaths (and it was Buckingham who
suggested they be kept in the Tower in the first place). Shortly after the
Princes supposed disappearance Buckingham took part in an uprising against
Richard which failed and resulted in Buckingham’s execution in November 1483.
The timing of the
events surrounding Buckingham and the eponymous rebellion particularly concerning the
Princes seems to fit very well with the idea of a pre-conceived plan to remove
all obstacles between him and the throne. In the end it failed and Richard was
left to deal with the aftermath of Buckingham’s actions. (Buckingham had
probably hoped to reap the rewards of assisting with the ascension of the King
of England or perhaps replace him when the opportunity arose).
I think it is
unfortunate that Richard didn’t prevent the deaths of the Princes (and I do
believe they did die as I’m sure he would have brought them out to prove that
they were still alive if he could) because it gave his enemies all the
ammunition they needed against him. But I just don’t believe he would have had
any reason or desire to kill the sons of his late brother, King Edward IV, to whom he had always pledged allegiance. Richard’s motto was 'Loyaulte me lie'
(Loyalty binds me) - would he really have forgone all that to commit a murder
that was unnecessary and tyrannical?
There is of course the issue that, if they did die during his reign, why did he not announce it? To be honest I don't think he had nothing to gain from doing so. The situation may not have been of his making but publicly declaring it perhaps in an attempt to absolve himself of any associated guilt would have been unlikely to have succeeded in this aim – i.e. just because he said he was innocent, would anyone have believed him? He also couldn’t deny it as he couldn’t be sure of some co-conspirator of Buckingham’s being able to provide proof of their deaths should he attempt to lie his way out of trouble.
There is of course the issue that, if they did die during his reign, why did he not announce it? To be honest I don't think he had nothing to gain from doing so. The situation may not have been of his making but publicly declaring it perhaps in an attempt to absolve himself of any associated guilt would have been unlikely to have succeeded in this aim – i.e. just because he said he was innocent, would anyone have believed him? He also couldn’t deny it as he couldn’t be sure of some co-conspirator of Buckingham’s being able to provide proof of their deaths should he attempt to lie his way out of trouble.
Ultimately, announcing
it would have done no good as he could have lost support if he was not
believed, denying it would have done no good as it could have caused problems if he'd been disproved so he took the only option left to him: he remained silent – no confirmation, no
denial, no conflagration.
As for Richard’s motive for usurpation, how about:
As for Richard’s motive for usurpation, how about:
1) The power-hungry,
manipulative and highly unpopular Woodvilles sought to block Richard from his
appointed position as Protector so that they themselves could rule England
2) The last boy king
England had had (Henry VI) had resulted in the outbreak of the Wars of the
Roses as a weak king had been viewed as an opportunity by those who would rule
in his stead
I don’t think it was necessarily
a power-hungry act or one intended to bring about the end of Edward V and his
brother. I honestly believe it was viewed as an attempt to ensure the stability
of the country under a strong ruler. After all, Richard had proven himself an
adroit battle commander and popular leader with many achievements to his name.
Above all we cannot judge Richard’s actions
by today’s standards and perhaps by comparing it to those of his contemporaries
we may find that it wasn’t so much a case of ruthless and ambitious political
play as an attempt to secure a potentially fractious kingdom. Henry VII may
claim the credit for this but he was himself a usurper who benefited from
excellent propaganda – is there so much difference? And is Richard truly the monster
of the piece?
