From the Mind of Merc - The Princes in the Tower

Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics and occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today’s topic was The Princes in the Tower

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.

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:

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?