Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Worse, Richard III and Henry VII are the least likely to have have done so. Henry VII after he was in Power acted as if he did not KNOW what happen to those two boys and looked for them. Richard III, when he held the crown, knew the boys were popular and thus would NOT risk killing them UNLESS he had solid evidence of treason (And given they ages, not likely to be provable to most people). Furthermore Richard III had had the boys declared illegitimate and thus NO longer in line for the throne (Through illegitimacy was never a complete bar from becoming King of England, given William the Conqueror himself had been illegitimate).
The third suspect is the most likely, now Wikipedia says he may have been working for Richard III and/or Henry VII, but my position is he was working for himself, while in rebellion against Richard III. He either made the mistake that Richard III would forgive his rebellion if he killed the princes (Richard III apparently did not) or Henry VII would return defeat Richard III and reward the killer for killing the princes (Never happened the Killer fell into the hands of Richard III, who executed him).
Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was Richard's right-hand man and sought personal advantage through the new king. Some, notably Paul Murray Kendall, regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out because Buckingham had taken it on himself for whatever reason to dispose of Richard's rival claimants; alternatively, he could have been acting on behalf of Henry Tudor (later to become King Henry VII). On the other hand, if Buckingham were guilty he could equally well have been acting on Richard's orders, with his rebellion coming after he became dissatisfied with Richard's treatment of him. As a descendant of Edward III, through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, Buckingham may have hoped to accede to the throne himself in due course. Buckingham's guilt depends on the princes having already been dead by October 1483, since he was executed the following month. In the 1980s, within the archives of the College of Arms in London, further documentation was discovered which states that the murder was conducted "be (by) the vise of the Duke of Buckingham".[6] Another reference, surfacing this time in the Portuguese archives, states that "...and after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death." [7] However neither document states whether Buckingham acted for himself, on Richard's orders, or in collusion with the Tudor party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower
And some evidence that the princes were NEVER murdered:
http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
The above cite mention that Richard III had the DAUGHTERS of his brother (the sisters of the Princes) at Christmas 1484. Given England was NEVER under Salic Law (The law that prohibits inheritance through a woman), these women were as much a threat to his throne as their brothers. In fact several of the revolts of the time period were lead by women, including Richard IIIs own sister in law (Mother of the princes and widow to Edward IV).
Part of the problem with who killed the Princes is that these were all cousins fighting among themselves for various positions within England. The throne was one of many prizes and people shifted sides depending on who offered them what.
Then Henry VII's hold was legally weak (But he had given a lot away to make himself king), thus when Henry VIII discovered by breaking with Rome he could steal all of the property of the Church for himself and re-buy his Father's supporters he was all for it. Henry VIII's take over of the Church Lands of England was the single largest confiscation of land in English History. It is appears smaller then the post WWII nationalization program of England due to the growth in Wealth in England since the 1500s (And the post WWII nationalization included payment to the previous owners, something Henry VIII never did). His Daughter Mary, made it a point that she was NOT going to undo what Henry VIII had done (and thus secured her throne) but a lot of the people on those lands never trusted her for she remained Catholic (And remember their title to the land was based on the king STEALING it from the Catholic Church). Thus massive opposition to Mary till her death (and one of the reason for the people she had to execute, to please her husband Philip of Spain, to secure additional revenue from Puritans who paid up to avoid execution, and such money seems to be more important then the executions, and to keep the Puritans in London in line). Elizabeth, when she became Queen, also executed a lot of people, but breaking with Rome relaxed the fears of all the people who lived on lands taken from the Catholic Church.
Yes, in many ways the Rule of the Tutors lead to the English Civil War of the 1640s. You had to many people on land stolen from the Catholic Church to be comfortable with a ruler who was Catholic or anyway tied in with the Catholic Church all due to Henry VIII's taking of Church land to pay off the supporters of both the house of York and Lancaster. Henry VII had not done so, for by the time he had won, he had defeated all other competitors and thus did not need to. The problem was more competitors to the throne were on the way and they would have become a headache for Henry VIII, Mary and Elizabeth except for the support all three had from the sale and/or granting of those lands to various supporters of the House of York and Lancaster. In many ways the fight between the houses of York and Lancaster ended with them dividing Church land between them and merging.
The problem was London was ignored by the Tutors, except as something to hold and as a source of revenue. The Raising Upper Middle Class wanted more say in how the country was run, complicated by the raise in Sheep Farming for wool to export to the weaving mills of the Netherlands for turning into material. London controlled that trade, was a huge source of revenue, but also power, power that the Tutors had to address but was really NOT part of their power structure.
Thus the English Civil War of the 1640s, in many ways the Houses of York and Lancaster against the raising power of London. England was still rural at that time, but more and more of rural England was tied in with Sheep raising for wool to be shipped out of London. Much of the former Church Land had been traditional pasture areas and thus a lot of the people most fearful of losing they lands to the Catholic Church where the most business with London and thus they loyalty was NOT with the House of Tutor (or later Stuart) but with London. The House of Stuart's ties with France (and France rejection of Puritanism) sealed the alliance, for the House of Stuart represented the one thing these Puritan land owners feared, loss of their land to the Catholic Church.
Notice, religion had little to do with who supported whom, the Religion was just a way to identify who supported who. The English Civil War was less Protestant vs Catholic as London and people tied in with the Wool Trade (Who tended to be Protestant), against people NOT tied in with the Wool Trade (Who tended to be Catholic). England was much more tied in with the trade much more then France, thus turned "Protestant" while France, more tied in with raising crops, stayed Catholic. Areas in both Countries that did NOT confirm to the trend of the rest of the country often were the religion that reflected the difference. Ireland, less affected by Trade remained Catholic (Northern Ireland being the big exception, but Belfast was tied in with Trade). Aquitaine in France turned Puritan, for it was tied in with the Atlantic Trade routes, while most of France remained Catholic.
The above forces were at work even in the 1400s a hundred years BEFORE the Protestant Reformation. People were reacting to those changes AND interacting as family members with each other. I bring it up for it helps explains some of the parts of the War of the Roses that are hard to understand today. The War was driven by the above economic movements (As was the Protestant Reformation) but also various parts of the Royal families and their supporters interacting with each other. The raise of the Upper Middle Class is part of the history, but a part often NOT recorded at the time. The problems of the 1400s England were address in the 1500s, but how those problems were "solved" lead to the English Civil War of the 1640s. The Tutors merged the supporters of the House of York and Lancaster, first by force of arms (Henry VII) then by buying them (Henry VIII). The problem was the money the Tutor's used to buy support had its own price to pay, and that was the raise of the upper middle class as the main source of power in England, replacing the old nobility (and then only on land taken from the Catholic Church, complicating the situation, given most of Europe stayed Catholic).
Many of these problem were resolve only by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 (Similar problems in France had to wait till the French Revolution of 1789 for the simple reason it took a longer time period for the Upper Middle Class to gain power in France then in England, given the better condition for farming in France and the better condition for trade, in England i.e. England is an Island thus easy to get to the sea to trade, France has borders with other countries and thus harder to set up trade routes).
= new reply since forum marked as read
