AHC: Prove Richard III Did NOT Murder The Princes In The Tower

Who killed(or had killed)those two poor lads
is of course quite probably the single most
debated question in all of English history.
Personally, I have to say that I think that
Richard III is indeed the one who did it(he
had the motive, the means to do so, & the
opportunity). But of course down through
the years many have disagreed, & they have
raised some good points.

So my fellow posters: bring forth evidence
that will exculpatate Richard(& if you can pin
the dirty deed on someone else-like Henry
VII?- so much the better!)
 
How exactly do you prove a negative?

It would be necessary to find a letter in which someone else admitted to doing it, and who in his right mind would put such an admission in writing?
 
Depends what you mean by "prove".

After the lapse of fice cebturies, "beyond reasonable dout" is obviously unattainable, so presumably it can only be "balance of probability".

Good point Mikenstone(this is why I person-
ally hold Richard guilty- the balance of prob-
ability points most strongly in his direction).
 
Good point Mikenstone(this is why I person-
ally hold Richard guilty- the balance of prob-
ability points most strongly in his direction).
Since it's against his best interest I say the balance of probability points to a member of his entourage not him.
 
Richard probably didn't do it himself himself. He would have had people to do that for him.
Yeah but it's rather incompetent for someone so politically minded to just disappear them.
Would have been much easier, simpler, and believable to accuse the boys of treason a few years later.
Having them gone just looks bad on him.
That's why I tend to go for one of the following:
  • Incompetent underling doing it without Richard's knowledge to get in his good books and said underling being too important to out
  • Failed rescue attempt that had to be kept quiet
  • Someone trying to discredit Richard and benefit Henry Tudor
 
Last edited:
A public admission of responsibility by someone else might do.

If there was a candidate for the deed outside of Richard, I would argue Thomas Stanley. He had much to gain from a deposition of Richard that included a non-Yorkist replacement (he was married to Henry Tudor's mother, and would have expectation of rewards in a new regime), but he was close enough to Richard III to have the means and opportunity.
 
Yeah but it's rather incompetent for someone so politically minded to just disappear them.
Would have been much easier, simpler, and believable to accuse the boys of treason a few years later.
Having them gone just looks bad on him.
That's why I tend to go for one of the following:
  • Incompetent underling doing it without Richard's knowledge to get in his good books and said underling being too important to out
  • Failed rescue attempt that had to be kept quiet
  • Someone trying to discredit Richard and benefit Henry Tudor

  • Spirited away to a safer place and time by a kindly, if odd, man (or woman) in a conveyance shaped like a blue box :biggrin:
 
Richard probably didn't do it himself himself. He would have had people to do that for him.

Maybe even his Queen, Anne Neville.

Her life had been a series of ups and downs, on top on minute and in flight the next. Just one heartbeat stood between her and the position Elizabeth Woodville was now in, so she might have wanted rid of any possible challengers to her own young son, should anything happen to Richard.

This would also explain his silence, as if her action were discovered, no one would believe that he was not involved. He could only keep shtum and hope for the best.
 
A public admission of responsibility by someone else might do.

If there was a candidate for the deed outside of Richard, I would argue Thomas Stanley. He had much to gain from a deposition of Richard that included a non-Yorkist replacement (he was married to Henry Tudor's mother, and would have expectation of rewards in a new regime), but he was close enough to Richard III to have the means and opportunity.

Buckingham also gets brought up as a suspect, but I've never found that especially persuasive.
 
Buckingham also gets brought up as a suspect, but I've never found that especially persuasive.
I think its possible only in that he had means and opportunity, but for a very brief period of time and not necessarily one that makes it all that likely.

The thing about a case without much evidence is that you kind of have to go with what makes the most sense, and that is with Richard III. There really is no other theory that has even the approach of passing the smell test.
 
I think its possible only in that he had means and opportunity, but for a very brief period of time and not necessarily one that makes it all that likely.

The thing about a case without much evidence is that you kind of have to go with what makes the most sense, and that is with Richard III. There really is no other theory that has even the approach of passing the smell test.

Yeah, I'm very much in the same boat re: Richard being the most likely candidate, despite my somewhat Ricardian sympathies.
 

Scaevola

Banned
Screenshot_20180727-183336.png
Screenshot_20180727-183341.png
Screenshot_20180727-183350.png


A very interesting analysis of this that I read. Logical inference of the situation.
 

Md139115

Banned
Yeah but it's rather incompetent for someone so politically minded to just disappear them.
Would have been much easier, simpler, and believable to accuse the boys of treason a few years later.
Having them gone just looks bad on him.

The issue with this is that the older one was not a mere prince, he was King Edward V, or at least he was until Richard had them declared illegitimate. No one is going to accept a charge of treason because until the English Civil War, the idea that the King could commit treason against... well... himself just did not make any sense.

Their deaths were what was needed to solidify his claim to the throne, and he knew it.
 
Top