WI: Richard III Is More Subtle?

I understand this is a subject of considerable contention, but my opinion is that the evidence suggests that Richard III was behind the apparent murder of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. The strongest pieces of evidence for this are 1) the fact that when accused of murdering his nephews throughout late 1483 and into 1484 and 1485, Richard did not immediately produce them from the Tower, demonstrating that they were alive, which indicates that either he no longer had possession of them by that time (unlikely, given the extreme security precautions taken around the Tower) or that they were dead, and 2) Richard never tried and convicted anyone else for the crime, which is indicative that there was insufficient evidence, or he was unable to fake sufficient evidence, to convict anyone else of the crime, and in addition those who he might have accused were privy to incriminating evidence against him. In the end, I must conclude that sometime in August 1483, Richard ordered the deaths of his two nephews in order to secure his throne.

However, this security proved illusory. The rumor that the King had murdered, or ordered the murder, of his nephews spread quickly, and did much to undermine Richard's popularity and legitimacy. What if he had been subtler?

The idea occurs that it would not have been excessively difficult to deliberately expose and infect Edward and Richard of York with one of the communicable diseases so prevalent in Yorkist England at that time. Typhus, tuberculosis, smallpox, the plague--any of these could have been introduced into the princes' household, thus infecting them and bringing them to an early grave. What's more, such a method would allow their deaths to be very public--supporters of Edward V could be brought in to see the two boys and witness their deaths, thus removing many of those insidious rumors from later in Richard's reign. If the boys seemed likely to recover, poison could be surreptitiously given to them to ensure they did in fact expire.

Suppose Richard III did choose to use this more devious method. What would the consequences be?
 
I understand this is a subject of considerable contention, but my opinion is that the evidence suggests that Richard III was behind the apparent murder of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. The strongest pieces of evidence for this are 1) the fact that when accused of murdering his nephews throughout late 1483 and into 1484 and 1485, Richard did not immediately produce them from the Tower, demonstrating that they were alive, which indicates that either he no longer had possession of them by that time (unlikely, given the extreme security precautions taken around the Tower) or that they were dead, and 2) Richard never tried and convicted anyone else for the crime, which is indicative that there was insufficient evidence, or he was unable to fake sufficient evidence, to convict anyone else of the crime, and in addition those who he might have accused were privy to incriminating evidence against him. In the end, I must conclude that sometime in August 1483, Richard ordered the deaths of his two nephews in order to secure his throne.

However, this security proved illusory. The rumor that the King had murdered, or ordered the murder, of his nephews spread quickly, and did much to undermine Richard's popularity and legitimacy. What if he had been subtler?

The idea occurs that it would not have been excessively difficult to deliberately expose and infect Edward and Richard of York with one of the communicable diseases so prevalent in Yorkist England at that time. Typhus, tuberculosis, smallpox, the plague--any of these could have been introduced into the princes' household, thus infecting them and bringing them to an early grave. What's more, such a method would allow their deaths to be very public--supporters of Edward V could be brought in to see the two boys and witness their deaths, thus removing many of those insidious rumors from later in Richard's reign. If the boys seemed likely to recover, poison could be surreptitiously given to them to ensure they did in fact expire.

Suppose Richard III did choose to use this more devious method. What would the consequences be?

If you wish to start a flame war, this is a great way to make one. :mad: Many people, myself included, believe Richard is innocent so you shouldn't try to have us speculate about cruel ways to murder the princes. What insidious rumours do you mean anyway? Only Buckingham and the French actually spread these rumours.Please delete this thread and do not mention this again.
 
If you wish to start a flame war, this is a great way to make one. :mad: Many people, myself included, believe Richard is innocent so you shouldn't try to have us speculate about cruel ways to murder the princes. What insidious rumours do you mean anyway? Only Buckingham and the French actually spread these rumours.Please delete this thread and do not mention this again.

This is a discussion forum; if you feel this subject will upset you or that you have nothing to contribute, you are certainly free to not post in this thread. However, demanding that others take down their posts simply because you disagree with the subject under discussion is rude.

Even assuming that you believe Richard did not order the murder of his nephews, if we take as the premise that he in fact did, what would be the differences in history were he to do so in a more subtle fashion than occurred in our own history?
 
If you wish to start a flame war, this is a great way to make one. :mad: Many people, myself included, believe Richard is innocent so you shouldn't try to have us speculate about cruel ways to murder the princes. Please delete this thread and do not mention this again.
Now now, no need to get angry. He probably shouldn't be calling Richard murdering them the only logical conclusion (I myself feel that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they died naturally, accidentally, or at Henry VII's hands, so I withhold judgement), but asking what would happen if Richard subtly and publicly murdered them without implying that we have concrete evidence that he murdered them IOTL is a perfectly valid WI.

I would say it doesn't change much, unless it can butterfly something important between the PoD and Henry's invasion. Richard wasn't particularly despised, and those who did hate him usually had other reasons than the princes as their primary grievances. If the princes die in this way, then people start saying that Richard poisoned them or mistreated them into an early grave, so it doesn't make too much difference. If butterflies save Edward of Middleham or convince Richard to be more careful in his handling Henry Tudor, then he will likely keep his throne. If not, then things go as IOTL. Either way, his handling of the princes makes little direct difference if they end up dead in his posession.
 
If you wish to start a flame war, this is a great way to make one. :mad: Many people, myself included, believe Richard is innocent so you shouldn't try to have us speculate about cruel ways to murder the princes. What insidious rumours do you mean anyway? Only Buckingham and the French actually spread these rumours.Please delete this thread and do not mention this again.

The OP isn't the one spreading flames here, sir.
 
If you wish to start a flame war, this is a great way to make one. :mad: Many people, myself included, believe Richard is innocent so you shouldn't try to have us speculate about cruel ways to murder the princes. What insidious rumours do you mean anyway? Only Buckingham and the French actually spread these rumours.Please delete this thread and do not mention this again.

OK calm down. Many people also believe that he had them killed. I'm of the opinion that he had them killed in the same way that Catherine the Great had her husband killed. They didn't order it, but it was carried out by their supporters, and they saw no reason to prosecute them for doing something that ultimately secured them the throne.

Back to the question at hand, I doubt much would change. I mean even IF Richard was smart enough to use biological warfare (which is what that would be) it wouldn't win over people who already hated him, but it might help his later black reputation. There would also be no Princes of the Tower legends. And I doubt there would be false pretenders during Henry VII
s reign. The main question to me is this: was the murder of the princes what got Henry Tudor to invade England or no? If not, then not much would change. If so, then we might see a weaker Henry Tudor who's unable to invade England.
 
Do we know for certain that the princes were murdered, though? Henry VII didn't accuse Richard of their murders. Also, the two skeletons found in 1674 haven't been forensically tested yet, and such tests are the only way we'll know for sure.

In answer to the OP, the princes would probably just have been poisoned rather than go to the extra trouble of infecting them and risking the spread of the disease to anyone else--even to Richard himself. But as Pericles pointed out, it's best to leave the subject be.
 
Sidestepping the question of Richard's OTL guilt or innocence I think the major question is whether it would prevent or forestall Buckingham's rebellion which could have large butterflies down the road.
 
Do we know for certain that the princes were murdered, though? Henry VII didn't accuse Richard of their murders. Also, the two skeletons found in 1674 haven't been forensically tested yet, and such tests are the only way we'll know for sure.

If I was the Earl of Richmond I wouldn't accuse Richard III of their murders, either. I wouldn't even acknowledge their existence.
 
If I was the Earl of Richmond I wouldn't accuse Richard III of their murders, either. I wouldn't even acknowledge their existence.

Wait didn't the Tudors blame Richard III for the murders? I mean I know that murdering his nephews were part of the black legend so if it wasn't Henry VII then who was it? Henry VIII? Or was that merely manufactured by Shakespeare?
 
On the impact: I think it does rather make a significant difference if people believe - correctly or not - that they died from natural causes. People did suspect - rightly or not - that they had died in his hands OTL.

That can't have helped his situation.

However, I'm not sure how easy it would be to introduce one of those diseases into their household in a way that seems innocuous enough.
 
The first formal 'confession' was the Tyrell one in 1502, which he claimed he did the deed on Richard's orders, from then on that is the "standard" version that was used by More and Shakespeare.
Henry VII clearly until the convenient Tyrell confession appears completely in the dark which might explain his paranoia as pretenders appeared over the years.
It is quite feasible one of them might have died of natural causes or in some botched escape/rescue attempt but for both to die in either way would stretch most people's credulity.
The idea they had been "done away" was a natural result of Richard's coup d'etat - deposed monarchs don't usually have a long shelf life.
The French rumours were natural given the political situation in France with the accession of Charles VIII, a minor, and the regency of his sister.
For me murder is the most likely option in the circumstances and whether on Richard's direct order or not the responisbility lies with him.
However back to the opening point - he was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.
Publicly displaying them as dead wouldn't banish rumours they had been murdered on his orders - showing them in ill health and close to death would have the same result.
Any surprise royal death at this period prompted poison rumours.
Richard's lack of short-term security was based on a) dubious legitimacy (parliament's recognition of his 'claim' was a rubber stamp recognising the real politics of the day that he had seized power)
b) lack of an obvious heir (the death of his son in 1484) - meant those reliant on him for patronage would naturally feel insecure about what would come after he was gone. c) Patronage - he was heavily reliant on a narrow section of support (principally his northern adherrants - overtime he might have been able to turn this situation around as more and more men from other parts of the country gained positions in the household etc).
Henry Tudor - was effectively a non-entity until Richard III took power - he was very lucky in 1485.
 
Sidestepping the question of Richard's OTL guilt or innocence I think the major question is whether it would prevent or forestall Buckingham's rebellion which could have large butterflies down the road.
Some people actually consider Buckingham to be the prime suspect for their murder. In his role as Lord Constable of England he had enough access to & control over events in the Tower, his camp seems to have been one of the main sources for the rumour, and killing them but getting Richard blamed would have helped to clear his own path (arguably with a better claim than Henry Tudor possessed) to the throne.
 
Last edited:
The main question to me is this: was the murder of the princes what got Henry Tudor to invade England or no? If not, then not much would change. If so, then we might see a weaker Henry Tudor who's unable to invade England.


The murder (actual or supposed) did not in itself cause the invasion, but certainly facilitated it.

If the Princes were dead (and from late 1483 a lot of important people were acting as if they believed this) then their claims passed to their sister Elizabeth, which in turn cleared the way for all Richard's enemies to form a united front by supporting her marriage to Henry Tudor.

Had the Princes been still alive, or even generally believed to be, then they would have enjoyed the support of Richard's Yorkist opponents, leaving Henry with only the surviving Lancastrians, who since 1471 had been pretty much of a busted flush. Henry might still have tried, but the odds against him would have been a good deal longer.
 
It's not a ridiculous idea to think Richard III might have had the Princes in the Tower murdered. Most of the circumstantial evidence points towards him and most of the contemporary accounts point in his direction.

The perception that Richard III killed them lost him a lot of support at home. Many people thought they were the rightful heirs to the throne and once they assumed they were murdered (after they disappeared) were willing to transfer their support to Henry Tudor because he was engaged to their sister, Elizabeth of York. Even if Richard still takes the throne from the princes, if he isn't blamed for killing the him, I think he'll have a stronger chance of keeping his crown. Even if the boys stayed in the tower but made public appearances (to show people they were alive) he might not loose support so sharply like he did in the OTL.
 
Last edited:
Hm. From the sound of things, no-one had a really big reason to kill the children. And those with the most motive had least opportunity.

Often when there are two scenarios, and neither makes sense, it's an indication that the reality is something different to either.

Occam's razor here. And Hanlon's Law.

Mediaeval England was an unhealthy place at best . London worst than most, the Tower worst of the worst. People regularly died - of typhoid, typhus, galloping gloits , witchcraft, whatever. No sanitation, no medicine, no understanding of hygiene, two young boys locked up together (probably sharing the same bed as was the custom). If one gets sick, the other will get it for sure.

So, King Richard has gone off to deal with this Tudor wannabe. And left the princes in the custody of the Constable of the Tower. With very specific instructions to take great care of them, and let nothing happen to them, or else. Very unpleasant else. They're very important.

And now, laments our Constable, the little buggers have gone dead. Galloping gloits the apothecary says. Whatever, it means that when King Richard gets back and checks up on them, the Constable is a gone gosling. Oh woe.

And then, wonderful news. (for the constable). King Richard lost the battle, he's dead. The new King, King Henry is on his way to London.

And King Henry won't know anything at all about what arrangements were made for the princes. So, hide the bodies and deny everything. Princes ? Nope never had them here, not for ages anyway, taken away long ago they was. Maybe try Barnard's Castle, down the road ?

King Henry arrives, asks where the princes (after all they are the brothers of the woman he will marry) . Nobody will admit knowing anything about them.

That leaves Henry in a pickle. He doesn't know if they are dead, he suspects maybe they are,but he can't announce that without bodies; if they are alive, it probably means some underhand devious would be usurper has them hidden in a castle somewhere. Somewhere.

A great mystery . Which no one can resolve. Except the constable and he is not about to say anything. Ever.
 
The problem is that they were believed dead before Richard went out to get himself conveniently (for the constable) killed.

Yet Richard, who would have had the perfect chance to play grieving uncle - they're still his nephews even if they're illegitimate - failed to do so.

Obviously this is not proof, but that hardly suggests that they just caught something as late as Bosworth.
 
True, but the Middle Ages was even bigger on conspiracy theories than modern times. Anybody locked up by The Man, you could bet on rumours that they'd been poisoned, killed, smothered, ritually murdered etc.
 
True, but the Middle Ages was even bigger on conspiracy theories than modern times. Anybody locked up by The Man, you could bet on rumours that they'd been poisoned, killed, smothered, ritually murdered etc.

Sometimes all of the above. But that raises the issue of - if they were alive, why the absence of efforts to show that?

Its one thing for the large crowd of credulous to believe the worst, but it went beyond them.

Unfortunately for the standpoint of Richard's guilt or innocence being proven, I don't think we can possibly narrow down exactly when they died from the available evidence - we can certainly say it is highly likely one way or another, but its far too late for determining time of death the way one would do with a modern corpse.
 
Sometimes all of the above. But that raises the issue of - if they were alive, why the absence of efforts to show that?
Because they are still a serious threat to his regime? If he shows that they are alive, they are justification for a rebellion, and a much better justification than Henry Tudor ever was at that, and if he shows them to be dead, than whether or not he did it he'll still be blamed for either murder or incompetence. In many ways, keeping the princes' fate uncertain was a very good thing for Richard (even if not for his later reputation), he just had a run of bad luck in other areas.

Also note, if he grieves, that proves they are dead without proving his innocence in the matter, so it doesn't actually make much sense. Henry VII just happened to have a convenient excuse to prove his innocence (rightly or not), namely the fact that the princes hadn't been seen publicly in a year when he took over, so whether or not they ever came into his posession is irrelevant. If they were still alive, then it makes the most sense for him to kill them and blame Richard (he definitely did the latter part IOTL).

As far as I'm concerned, for both Richard and Henry, the right thing to do publicly if the princes were dead is exactly the same as the right thing to do if they were still alive, even ignoring whether or not either man murdered them. The only thing that lends itself to Richard is the year without seeing the princes where he controlled the tower, but even that doesn't prove that he killed them, it just suggests (still, not confirms) that they died during that year.
 
Top