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

It is quite hard to get away from the propaganda - Richard's against his so-called enemies the Queen Dowager and his family, and the Tudor's against Richard in order to strengthen their own regime.

Up to 1483 Richard was loyal and had a pretty amicable relationship with his brother and his sister-in-law and her relatives.
On Edward's death it seems likely that Hastings encouraged Richard to act and to take control due to his own poor relationship with the Queen and Dorset.
At this point the late King's council seemed to be willing to continue the government in the young King's name with no suggestion of a regency and with a speedy coronation.
The suggestion Richard had been named protector came later and was used by Richard to legitimize his early actions, however there is zero evidence that he was named as protector or regent in Edward IV's will.
The Queen was praised by the council for her willingness to compromise over the size of escort for the young King - many on the council wanted the number limiting.
Anthony Earl Rivers was amenable to meeting Richard and Buckingham ahead of arriving in London, Rivers also took his time clearly not in a rush to assume any kind of power.
The actions up to Richard's coup suggest that there was no reason to fear the accession of the new King by anyone or to fear the dominance of the Queen's brother and eldest son - the only person to be threatened by that was Hastings.
Richard's actions in arresting Rivers etc and taking custody of the King don't suggest a plan but were certainly effective. The reaction to it proves one thing that the Queen's family did not act as one and did not have the strength to counter Richard.
Richard's move to take control of the King's brother, the judicial murders of Rivers and Grey and Hastings - suggest his ambition had woken up and he realised his protectorate would be short-lived (the council was still planning an early coronation which would almost certainly see an end to Richard's control).
Hastings might have feared Dorset and the Queen but he wasn't going to see his friend's son removed from the throne.
Once Richard was King he had to remove the threats to his own reign - the series of revolts that followed his accession were initially in the name of Edward V - largely prompted by members of Edward IV's household (the men closest to him) - those would grow into the Buckingham revolt and by then the rumours the King and his brother were dead were spreading.
So basically any "suspect" has to do the deed in the Summer/Autumn of 1483 - It is possible that Richard ordered them done in, it is also possible one or both died from being kept (deliberately or not) in poor conditions perhaps, it is possible if convenient that one of both simply died of natural causes, it is also possible one or both died in a botched attempt to rescue them and the other was done in.
 
I remember reading once somewhere that supposedly Henry Tudor had greater motive to get rid of the princes as his claim to the throne was shakier that Richard's.

But it is the fact that the princes disappeared while under Richard's care that tends to point the finger at him. And I agree, he didn't do it but it was done by others.
 
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.
Except for Richard's queen, Buckingham for a short time, Stanley, York hangers on, and Tudor supporters.
It wasn't in Richard's best interests how they died.

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.
Young Edward's illegitimacy could be legally argued (at the time) to bar him from the throne and thus make his accession an usurpation. Had Richard's reign continued this would have become the case.

It's inconceivable that Richard wouldn't have known the accusations that could be made against him if he disposed of the boys the way the Tudors accused and claimed.
 
Except for Richard's queen, Buckingham for a short time, Stanley, York hangers on, and Tudor supporters.
It wasn't in Richard's best interests how they died.


Young Edward's illegitimacy could be legally argued (at the time) to bar him from the throne and thus make his accession an usurpation. Had Richard's reign continued this would have become the case.

It's inconceivable that Richard wouldn't have known the accusations that could be made against him if he disposed of the boys the way the Tudors accused and claimed.

The problem is Richard was arguably damned if he did and damned if he didn't - the early uprisings against him (that are usually grouped together as Buckingham's rebellion) were all in the name of Edward V initially- clearly enough people doubted the argument being made in favour of Richard's claim - those early uprisings would probably prompt him to consider the risk his nephews posed long term - true their deaths would equally damn him but its a balancing act.

Better blamed for a death with no evidence or proof than deposed in the future by the grown up nephew disputing the claims made by his uncle to depose him.

The problem was in part that Richard needed an excuse and Edward IV's less than gentlemanly behaviour was an easy excuse - the validity of a marriage was not a secular courts responsibility - a church court should have ruled on the question under normal circumstances - none did that we know of - that means the only document declaring them to be illegitimate was the Act of Parliament confirming Richard's title to the throne - acts were of course reversible.
 
The problem is Richard was arguably damned if he did and damned if he didn't - the early uprisings against him (that are usually grouped together as Buckingham's rebellion) were all in the name of Edward V initially- clearly enough people doubted the argument being made in favour of Richard's claim - those early uprisings would probably prompt him to consider the risk his nephews posed long term - true their deaths would equally damn him but its a balancing act.

Better blamed for a death with no evidence or proof than deposed in the future by the grown up nephew disputing the claims made by his uncle to depose him.

The problem was in part that Richard needed an excuse and Edward IV's less than gentlemanly behaviour was an easy excuse - the validity of a marriage was not a secular courts responsibility - a church court should have ruled on the question under normal circumstances - none did that we know of - that means the only document declaring them to be illegitimate was the Act of Parliament confirming Richard's title to the throne - acts were of course reversible.
That's why I assert Richard would have a different plan than what occurred. A way to blame their deaths on treason or rebels.
 
The problem was in part that Richard needed an excuse and Edward IV's less than gentlemanly behaviour was an easy excuse - the validity of a marriage was not a secular courts responsibility - a church court should have ruled on the question under normal circumstances - none did that we know of - that means the only document declaring them to be illegitimate was the Act of Parliament confirming Richard's title to the throne - acts were of course reversible.

What would have happened had an ecclesiastical court ruled on this matter? Or did Richard explicitly not call an ecclesiastical court to rule because he knew the evidence was circumstantial? Edward V and more still, RoS, were born after Eleanor Talbot's death.
 
Answering to the original question: What if the bones of the boys were found and examination proved they had a fatal infectious disease? And to make it extra juicy, let's make it congenital syphilis. This is highly highly unlikely, but not impossible. The big assumption is that syphilis didn't only come from the New World.
 
As for my own opinion - Richard would never have done it himself, but he may well have spoken in frustration 'Who will rid me of these turbulent boys' and had someone think they were helping him by doing them in - a la Henry II and Becket.

To answer the OP: Edward V dies of an illness early in 1483 - either at Ludlow or during his journey to London. Richard of Shrewsbury is then spirited away from Westminster to Margaret of Burgundy's court, but is too young to claim the throne in his own right, being only about 8 or 9. Henry Tudor takes the throne as OTL but marries Margaret of Clarence instead of Elizabeth of York. However, Margaret and their son die in childbirth in the late 1480s. By 1495, Richard is quite old enough to claim England again and raises the banner of the White Rose once more. This time there is no doubt as to who he is and he defeats the usurping Tudor in the final battle of the Wars of the Roses - an ATL Stoke Field if you like.

Of course, the Stanleys still survive - although this time it is Thomas Stanley who loses his head, rather than William. Richard goes on to marry a foreign Princess - possibly Juana of Castile, she's about the right age for him and didn't marry until 1496, so there is a narrow window to sort it out, although Isabella never did like the Yorkists after Edward IV supposedly jilted her. But Juana was never her favourite daughter, so she may be quite happy to pack her off to the fringes of Christendom, given that.
 
Last edited:
What would have happened had an ecclesiastical court ruled on this matter? Or did Richard explicitly not call an ecclesiastical court to rule because he knew the evidence was circumstantial? Edward V and more still, RoS, were born after Eleanor Talbot's death.

My understanding and I am a bit vague is that if evidence suggested one or both parties of a marriage knew that there was an impediment (such as a pre-contract) then a subsequent remarriage (after the impediment had ended) did not render the marriage valid or the issue legitimate - i am sure an expert in church law will correct me.

To be honest by the time Richard would have got round to getting the church to investigate it was moot as Parliament had already declared the marriage invalid and accepted Richard as King - it would be a brave Archbishop who stepped up and said - "sorry everyone the church believes the marriage of the late King and Dame Elizabeth Grey to be fully valid" etc.

The evidence was little more than Edward's sexual reputation and the circumstances of his marriage to Elizabeth Grey (done in secret, not revealed publicly for some time etc) - there were no living witnesses (and even the suggestion that it was Stillington who 'revealed' it is dubious in the extreme given he is only named by one source). Quite frankly stand that up against a marriage that had been regarded as valid for nearly twenty years and a woman who had been crowned and annointed as Queen Consort and the whole thing looks very dodgy indeed.

To answer the OP - you can't without changing the circumstances quite a bit - I would suggest the best option would be as OTL until the summer of 1483 - Richard III decides to pack his deposed nephew and his brother off to the north out of the way of rebels in the South and West of the country. Someone attempts a 'daring rescue' attempt in which one or both boys are killed or fatally injured. The King who is clearly elsewhere can then publicly blame the rebels at the same time as making it clear to the rebels that there is now no real alternative to him as Edward IV's sons are no longer an option.
 
My understanding and I am a bit vague is that if evidence suggested one or both parties of a marriage knew that there was an impediment (such as a pre-contract) then a subsequent remarriage (after the impediment had ended) did not render the marriage valid or the issue legitimate - i am sure an expert in church law will correct me.

To be honest by the time Richard would have got round to getting the church to investigate it was moot as Parliament had already declared the marriage invalid and accepted Richard as King - it would be a brave Archbishop who stepped up and said - "sorry everyone the church believes the marriage of the late King and Dame Elizabeth Grey to be fully valid" etc.

The evidence was little more than Edward's sexual reputation and the circumstances of his marriage to Elizabeth Grey (done in secret, not revealed publicly for some time etc) - there were no living witnesses (and even the suggestion that it was Stillington who 'revealed' it is dubious in the extreme given he is only named by one source). Quite frankly stand that up against a marriage that had been regarded as valid for nearly twenty years and a woman who had been crowned and annointed as Queen Consort and the whole thing looks very dodgy indeed.

To answer the OP - you can't without changing the circumstances quite a bit - I would suggest the best option would be as OTL until the summer of 1483 - Richard III decides to pack his deposed nephew and his brother off to the north out of the way of rebels in the South and West of the country. Someone attempts a 'daring rescue' attempt in which one or both boys are killed or fatally injured. The King who is clearly elsewhere can then publicly blame the rebels at the same time as making it clear to the rebels that there is now no real alternative to him as Edward IV's sons are no longer an option.

I remember reading otherwise - that if either party didn't know of any impediments to their marriage, as Elizabeth Woodville probably didn't, the Church would rule in favour of the children's legitimacy through the good faith clause, but again, I could be wrong. A escape attempt gone wrong does seem a sensible way of killing the Princes without blaming Richard, mind.
 
I remember reading otherwise - that if either party didn't know of any impediments to their marriage, as Elizabeth Woodville probably didn't, the Church would rule in favour of the children's legitimacy through the good faith clause, but again, I could be wrong. A escape attempt gone wrong does seem a sensible way of killing the Princes without blaming Richard, mind.

I think Canon law at the period would not consider a 'remarriage' after the death of the first wife (the impediment to the subsequent bigamous union) to forgive the adultery of the couple thereby not 'restoring' the children's legitimacy.
Either way the whole pre-contract was a put up job if you ask me.
 
Top