Richard III

@panda12 wrote:

@minim wrote:

@sceptical guy wrote:

He might well be nnocent of that murder of the Princes….

the Royals have said they’ll refuse to let him be buried in Windsor or Westminster..they suggest Leiecester Cathedral…

I reckon York Minster would be good…he was very popular in York and always felt it was his home…

Henry very likely killed the boys in the tower. He married their older sister and of course he would have not wanted any little boys to threaten his rather rocky claim to the throne. The shakespeare version was for the Tudors, so no wonder it painted Richard III in a bad light, they needed a patsy to blame for the murders!

And.. he was very popular in York, it was his home, it is the Plantagent centre, and there is a Richard III museum in the wall. He was very popular with everyone, a kind and thoughtful man, it would have been out of character for him to have murdered his two little nephews.

I still think, replicas in the museum, and bury his bones. Poor man should be laid to rest.

The Princes were last seen in 1483 – Henry didn’t come to the throne until 1485 so by then it is likely they had already been dead for two years.

Richard III’s claim to the throne was precarious to say the least and he only became King by an Act of Parliament in 1483 which declared Edward and his younger brother, Richard illegitimate.

From what I studied, the two boys and their older sister were being held by Henry Tudor. He betrothed himself to her in 1483, at which point he no longer needed the boys and killed them. It took a further two years before Richard was killed. If the boys and their sister had been in the hands of Richard III, how did Henry Tudor manage to get hold of Elizabeth and get himself betrothed to her as a way of cementing his claim on the throne?

Nobody knows for sure what happened to the boys ….it is all speculation. But the version that most history books contain is the Tudor version. Henry VII and then Henry VIII and Elizabeth made sure of that. So Richard III was said to be the murderer. I just don’t believe that he could have been. He was a very studious and quiet man. He was happy in York with his wife, and didn’t want the throne. When his brother died, he stepped up to the mark and was Regent but the boys disappeared, interestingly, there is proof that they were placed in the Tower of London with their sister. And their sister then married Henry VII.

That is why there are people who suspect that all is not what it seems, and that Richard, who was not war like, but really a bit bookish, was framed.

Oh.. and Henry Tudor didn’t tell anyone the boys were dead until 1486….. why would that be then? And that was when he married their older sister.

There are too many things that do not add up if Richard was supposed to have killed them.

“Realistically, Henry’s only opportunity to murder the princes would have been after his accession in 1485.”

They were not seen after the Summer of 1483, the year Richard ascended the throne:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

I’ve got to go with the evidence and say Richard III is guilty and he murdered his nephews in order to consolidate his postion as King.