The main reason would be that they were more useful alive but imprisoned, much like Warwick was to Henry Tudor. Their deaths in Richard's custody are bad for Richard because it implies he aimed for usurpation and it allows for claims via their sisters.

Were they, though? As long as they're alive they'll be a focus of dissent and plotting, and you'll constantly be worrying that they'll escape the Tower. At least with the sisters you can try to defuse things by marrying them off to loyal supporters (like Cecily and Scrope), or continental aristocrats (hopefully) lacking the resources/inclination to press their claim (I.e. the proposed match between Liz and Manuel of Beja).

I suppose it depends on how you weigh up the two unsavoury alternatives- either you keep them alive and they'll be a constant, lurking threat, or you earn public opprobrium for murdering your nephews and lose the propaganda war.

And even if keeping them alive is the objectively better option, it's possible Richard, possibly in the heat of the moment (wasn't there a commotion or attempted escape shortly prior to their disappearance?), miscalculated and ordered their deaths.
 
Whether or not Richard actually killed the princes or someone else killed them is irrelevant. Richard had custody over them and has the responsibility to protect them, and either he murdered them, or he was grossly negligent in protecting them, and let them be killedthrough his incompetence. Either way, Richard is responsible for their deaths, and he will get the blame, and Richard would lose Yorkist support.
 
Were they, though?
Well yes. Plot magnets under your control is better than plot magnets out of it!
Having them imprisoned in the most secure prison for the nobility is bound to be less worrisome than worrying who they might be meeting up with and where.
Especially as any noble rising up in their name would have to free them first or run the risk of Richard publishing the princes disavowal of the rebels and gaining propaganda points.
Only once Richard is fully secure can they be "released" and either be shown as publicly useless to rebels (like young Warwick) or meet with a "hunting accident" when Richard has a secure alibi.
 
The main reason would be that they were more useful alive but imprisoned, much like Warwick was to Henry Tudor. Their deaths in Richard's custody are bad for Richard because it implies he aimed for usurpation and it allows for claims via their sisters.
Personally I think they either died in a bungled rescue (Warbeck could even be young Richard), on the orders of a stupid supporter of Richard III, or on the orders of Henry Tudor (or supporters).
Except Richard failed to actually use them this way when he was accused of murdering them (unlike Henry VII did with Warwick). And the previous decades had demonstrated clearly that as long as there was a living pretender, someone would be interested in using them as a figurehead for a restoration attempt (Henry VI was absolutely useless, and yet the Lancastrians made how many attempts to restore him? including one that briefly succeeded; the same was true for the imprisoned Richard II a century earlier). As long as the Princes were alive, someone would have the bright idea of using them as a justification for a rebellion. It's not like he needed anyone to accuse him of aiming for usurpation, either; he had already usurped the crown, as had half of English monarchs since the overthrow of Richard II (Edward IV even did it twice).

If they had died in a "rescue" attempt or been assassinated by someone other than Richard, he would have publicized that and been able to blame the perpetrators. The fact that he didn't strongly suggests they either died on his orders or, at best, of natural causes shortly after being imprisoned (which is also not a good look for the man who imprisoned them).

"It's more likely you get a clear-cut victory, but with the loser managing to escape with at least some of his supporters to continue the fight (most likely Richard, because I'm skeptical Henry Tudor would have been well-placed to stage a later comeback if he was defeated at Bosworth; I suspect someone would be much more likely to turn him over to Richard afterwards). That sort of thing did happen regularly throughout the Wars of the Roses."

Did it? I know quite a bit about the period and I had the exact opposition impression. If you were high ranking enough, losing a battle guaranteed you would be killed either during it or afterwards, and this applied to even minor battles.

In fact I have a hard time thinking of counter-examples. The Yorkists did not want to kill Henry VI or his wife, so they kept being taken prisoner or allowed to get away. And I think Warwick got away from one of the battle he lost. But I honestly can't think of any others.
Warwick got away from Second St. Albans, as you note, and rejoined Edward IV for Towton.

Several of the senior Lancastrian commanders (most notably Somerset) managed to escape from the disaster at Towton; Somerset also managed to escape from Hedgeley Moor after that defeat (with one of his allies leading a last stand delaying action, which is probably the easiest way for such a thing to happen at Bosworth), before finally dying at Hexham.

Oxford managed to escape Barnet (although he wasn't in overall command for that one, he did command one of the wings). And while it wasn't a real battle, the senior Yorkists all fled from Ludford Bridge once it became apparent that their army was outnumbered.

Those are the ones that immediately spring to mind.
 
Well yes. Plot magnets under your control is better than plot magnets out of it!
Having them imprisoned in the most secure prison for the nobility is bound to be less worrisome than worrying who they might be meeting up with and where.
Especially as any noble rising up in their name would have to free them first or run the risk of Richard publishing the princes disavowal of the rebels and gaining propaganda points.
Only once Richard is fully secure can they be "released" and either be shown as publicly useless to rebels (like young Warwick) or meet with a "hunting accident" when Richard has a secure alibi.
It still doesn’t explain why Richard didn’t produce them when rumours began to be heard that he had them killed. I mean it was so easy to march them through the streets and show how alive they were. So the most probable explanation was that they were dead, whether or not Richard had them killed.
 
Except Richard failed to actually use them this way when he was accused of murdering them (unlike Henry VII did with Warwick).

It still doesn’t explain why Richard didn’t produce them when rumours began to be heard that he had them killed. I mean it was so easy to march them through the streets and show how alive they were. So the most probable explanation was that they were dead, whether or not Richard had them killed.

I think you guys are misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying they weren't dead at the time he was accused, I'm saying it's unlikely he would have had it done deliberately because doing so hurts his cause and considering his upbringing he would know this! I'm saying their deaths are unlikely to have been ordered by Richard.
And the previous decades had demonstrated clearly that as long as there was a living pretender, someone would be interested in using them as a figurehead for a restoration attempt (Henry VI was absolutely useless, and yet the Lancastrians made how many attempts to restore him? including one that briefly succeeded; the same was true for the imprisoned Richard II a century earlier). As long as the Princes were alive, someone would have the bright idea of using them as a justification for a rebellion. It's not like he needed anyone to accuse him of aiming for usurpation, either; he had already usurped the crown, as had half of English monarchs since the overthrow of Richard II (Edward IV even did it twice).
Plot magnets under your control is better than plot magnets out of it!
Any noble rising up in their name would have to free them first or run the risk of Richard publishing the princes disavowal of the rebels and gaining propaganda points.
If they had died in a "rescue" attempt or been assassinated by someone other than Richard, he would have publicized that and been able to blame the perpetrators. The fact that he didn't strongly suggests they either died on his orders or, at best, of natural causes shortly after being imprisoned (which is also not a good look for the man who imprisoned them).
Well no, if someone else assassinated them it still looks like he did it because they got through his security. No one would believe he didn't.
Natural causes is understandable, as is one of his supporters doing it on his behalf without his knowledge.
But not Richard ordering it be done.
If he wanted them dead then a very public death during escape would have been easy for him to arrange.
 

Kaze

Banned
I never thought Anne as a suspect in the murder... Well, seems I now have a new theory other than "Who has control of the Tower of London at the time?" - the keeper of the Tower of London would be the one to dispose of the bodies under a staircase.

=====================

What about Richard's bastard son - John of Gloucester? Would he be excluded from succession? Some historians suspect that Richard if he won might think of legitimize him at least until Richard remarries and gives John a little brother.
 
What about Richard's bastard son - John of Gloucester? Would he be excluded from succession? Some historians suspect that Richard if he won might think of legitimize him at least until Richard remarries and gives John a little brother.

He can't be excluded from the succession- he was never in the line of succession.

And I doubt Richard would consider John a possible successor- given Richard deposed his nephews on the questionable grounds of a marital precontract rendering them bastards, it would look very bad and hypocritical for Richard to then legitimise John (who, contrary to the Princes, is undisputably a bastard) and potentially let him succeed.

More likely Richard remarries (Joanna of Portugal or otherwise) and hopes for a son, with Warwick/Lincoln (depending on what you believe there) being heir in the interim and taking the throne if Richard fails to have more kids.

John might get a title of some sort or other, and could become an influential figure- he was nominally made Captain of Calais IOTL, if Richard retained the throne would John (when he reaches adulthood) exercise actual authority there?
 
He can't be excluded from the succession- he was never in the line of succession.

And I doubt Richard would consider John a possible successor- given Richard deposed his nephews on the questionable grounds of a marital precontract rendering them bastards, it would look very bad and hypocritical for Richard to then legitimise John (who, contrary to the Princes, is undisputably a bastard) and potentially let him succeed.

More likely Richard remarries (Joanna of Portugal or otherwise) and hopes for a son, with Warwick/Lincoln (depending on what you believe there) being heir in the interim and taking the throne if Richard fails to have more kids.

John might get a title of some sort or other, and could become an influential figure- he was nominally made Captain of Calais IOTL, if Richard retained the throne would John (when he reaches adulthood) exercise actual authority there?
Technically bastards are still in the succession just behind all legitimate relatives. And local politics has some say - both Mary and Elizabeth Tudor were legally bastards but still succeeded ahead of their legitimate cousins.
As with the Beauforts a later legitimisation wouldn't place John ahead of Lincoln or Warwick unless he's got most of the nobles behind him to say it does with a more explicit Act of Parliament.
 
Top