h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Its obvious he was innocent of murdering the princes in the tower. Where was his motive? It's far more likely their deaths were ordered by Henry VII, after all if they were still alive they could chalange his claim to the throne.

Henry, infact, made himself King in no fewer than three ways.
1) By right of conquest. He beat Richard at the Battle of Bosworth. Up to this stage, this had been enough for most people.
2) By right of marriage. He quickly married Elizabeth of York. Thus uniting the Houses of Lancaster and of York, forming the ridiculously powerful Tudor dynasty.
3) By right of law. He got his claim ratified by Parliament.

A bit excessive perhaps, but - given the fun and games of the previous twenty or so years - quite understandable.

Pleased you read the entry. It was feeling a bit lonely - but there you go...

Whilst I think that Richard wasn't nearly bad as history has made out, I think that he probably did order the princes' deaths. Although infanticide was frowned upon then much as it is today, it was in some ways a wise move - the princes were effectively under the control of the Woodvilles (who hated Richard), and to remove the princes was to remove the Woodville's grasp onto power. Richard's brother Edward IV realised this in his 2nd reign when he had Henry VI murdered following the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471 - remove the figurehead, remove the opposition.

Certainly Richard had motive enough in that if he did murder the Princes, then it was almost certainly as a way of attempting to prevent another twenty years of bloody civil war. It is worth remembering that Richard had lived in an England that had been at war with itself since before his birth, and was probably heartily sick of it.

Of course, there were others who could have done it, one of whom was the Constable of the Tower, Buckingham, who had motive and means to murder the Prince's before his own ill-fated rebellion...

Valid point - and well made. Although, like the evidence against Richard purely circumstantial and probably a reaction to the anti-Richard Tudor propaganda. Though, as a confirmed Yorkist myself, it's circumstantial evidence I like to believe.

Valid point - and well made. Although, like the evidence against Richard purely circumstantial and probably a reaction to the anti-Richard Tudor propaganda. Though, as a confirmed Yorkist myself, it's circumstantial evidence I like to believe.

Valid point - and well made. Although, like the evidence against Richard purely circumstantial and probably a reaction to the anti-Richard Tudor propaganda. Though, as a confirmed Yorkist myself, it's circumstantial evidence I like to believe.

I've only ever seen the Buckingham theory advanced in one book, but it did seem as logical as most of the others.

As a believer in Occam's Razor (the most simple explanation is usually the right one), I must say that I think it likely Richard did murder them, but as we have both said, it would be a mistake to judge his actions by the standards of Twentieth century morality.