The Victims of Richard III
From April 9, 1483 through August 22, 1485:
June 13, 1483, at the Tower of London
William, Lord Hastings (best friend of Edward IV and his Chamberlain)
June 25, 1483, at Pontefract Castle
Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers (brother of Queen Elizabeth Woodville)
Richard, Lord Grey (son of Queen Elizabeth Woodville)
Sir Thomas Vaughan (Chamberlain of Edward V while Prince of Wales)Suffered as a consequence of the failed July 1483 Conspiracy:
John Smith, a groom of stirrup under Edward IV
Stephen Ireland, a wardrober in the Tower
Robert Rushe, sergeant of London
William Davy, pardoner of Houndslow
Richard III
Assassinated in the Tower of London
Edward V
Richard, Duke of York
Suffered as a consequence of the failed October 1483 Rebellion
November 2, 1483, at Salisbury
Henry Stafford , the Duke of Buckingham
November 13, 1483; at Exeter
Thomas St. Leger (brother-in-law of Edward IV and Richard III)
Thomas Rameney, "and another" (as recorded in the Chronicles of London)
December 4, 1483, in London
George Brown, knight of the body to Edward IV
William Clifford, and four of the following yeomen of the Crown: William Knight, Richard Cruse, William Frost, Richard Potter, Richard Fisher, John Boutayne, Roger Kelsale, and William Strode
Suffered for conspiracy to aid Henry Tudor's invasion:
October 1484
William Collynbourne
Roger Clifford
* Refer to: Louise Gill: "Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion", Rosemary Horrox: "Richard III: A Study in Service", Charles Ross: "Richard III," Michael Hicks, "Edward V," and "Richard III"
I’ve missed something.
I didn’t know it had been proven that Richard iii had assassinated his nephews in the Tower of London. How on earth did I miss that?
I’m so glad you asked me that question!
First, what do you mean by “prove”? How do you “prove” who is responsible for committing a murder that happened centuries ago? Has it been proven that Edward IV was responsible for the death of Henry VI? Or that Henry IV was responsible for the death of Richard II? Or that Isabelle and Mortimer were responsible for the death of Edward II?
It is naïve to think that a centuries-old death can be solved and the murderer pinpointed the same way that modern detectives might use in a recent murder where physical evidence is available, fresh, can be collected and preserved, and where witnesses can be interviewed. Regardless of age, there are two factors that murders have in common: Motive and opportunity.
Edward IV, Henry IV, and Isabella and Mortimer had motive and opportunity, and so did Richard III. I suppose if Edward IV, Henry IV, or Isabella and Mortimer were the objects of a cult of personality, as Richard is, they would have people attempting to prove they were innocent of these deaths too.
It is hard for Richard’s defenders to deny that Richard didn’t have opportunity: Both sons of Edward IV were under his dubious protection in the Tower. As for motivation, Richard had just deposed the rightful King and his heir. Richard’s defenders can go on about how they believe England swallowed Richard’s lie and that Richard had nothing to fear from them, but the actions of the people of the time tell a different story. The English did not accept what happened in June and July as being a normal “transfer of power.” The people were cowed into accepting it by Hastings’ murder and the rumor and arrival of a northern army. Those troops from the north probably did not know that they would be used to further a usurpation.
The reaction of Edward IV’s servants and friends informs us that they thought Edward V and his brother were dead by Richard’s hand. Many of them went into exile with Henry Tudor, while others stayed in England and furthered the resistance, fighting for Henry at Bosworth Field. My “Richard’s Rebels” page is a partial listing of names.
Richard’s kingship failed in twenty-six months because Richard divided his own party by conniving against the incumbent King and his supporters. He murdered that King and his brother because he knew they would always be his enemies, threats to him and his son.
Rumors of the murders spread across England and Europe and Richard did and said nothing to stop them. On the other hand, look what Henry Tudor did to silence speculation over Warwick’s imposture: He showed him publicly. Although I concede that Tudor was much smarter than Richard, Richard did nothing like this. There were many things Richard might have done, but he allowed the rumors to spread. Probably because they were true. It’s interesting that the Croyland Chronicler mentions that the death of Richard’s son in April 1484 gave rise to more speculation regarding Richard’s guilt.
In the many years since I’ve been involved in this period of history, I’ve actually had Richard’s defenders tell me that “there are no bodies,” as if the elaborate urn at Westminster Abbey doesn’t exist. I wondered why a more recent examination of the remains hasn’t been done, but I can think of a good reason.
In the meantime, Richard’s defenders use speculation and wishful thinking, snatching at vague references and jumping to conclusions to save Richard’s reputation, often at the expense of someone else’s. They can try to convince us that the boys grew to manhood, both so unambitious that they would let an impostor take their place. They try to pinpoint others as murderers, as if their opportunity and motives were greater than Richard’s. The more suspects they name, the more value they place on Edward’s kingship, because everyone who was threatened by Edward V’s existence knew that he was King by right.
In the case of Henry VI, Edward IV had his body displayed to prove that he was dead which would also curb any possibility of a rebellion with Henry VI as the figurehead. Also, if the boys were dead then why would Elizabeth Woodville’s son be put in the tower until the rebellion was over and coincidentally Elizabeth “retired” to an abbey. There’s also every indication that the annuity that was to be paid to her by the Crown was no longer doing so once she “retired” as by the time she passed away she was impoverished as per her last will and testament (which she wouldn’t have been had she been paid the annuity until her death). With respect to Edward II his death wasn’t described as murder until November 1330, when Roger Mortimer was accused of ‘having Edward murdered at Berkeley’ during his show trial.
The earliest reference to the ‘red-hot poker’ method of Edward II’s death is found in a longer continuation of the Brut, written in the 1330s. At the time of his death it was accepted that he had died by natural causes in 1327. On that note, it would have been much easier for King Richard III to have the Prince’s die of “natural” causes and produce their bodies rather than risking any uprisings in their names (which did happen under Henry VII and also why Henry VII displayed Richard III’s body post Boswell).
Why would it be assumed that Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were alive because Henry VII limited Thomas Grey’s freedom and Elizabeth Woodville retired to an abbey at the time of the Simnel rebellion?
The Yorkists had reasons to be disaffected with Henry’s kingship. When they received news that Edward’s sons were dead around September 1483, they turned their allegiance to Henry Tudor because he promised to marry Elizabeth of York. However, once attaining the throne, he did not seek to reign with Elizabeth, but made it clear that his claim to the throne was not dependent upon his promise.
Instead, he claimed the throne through conquest and delayed marriage until his own kingship had been approved by Parliament and he was crowned. He did not rule “together” with Elizabeth like Ferdinand and Isabella, as the Croyland Chronicler expected, but waited until January 1486 to marry her and treated her as his consort, not his coregent. Henry was not sufficiently grateful to those who had helped him attain his throne, and did not support his mother-in-law as comfortably as Richard had. Richard was generous; Henry was not. And, of course, a widow retiring to an abbey was not unusual.
Any Yorkist, including Elizabeth, who thought Henry was going to make a public investigation of his brothers-in-law’s disappearance would be disappointed. Henry was not a public relations man, but a tight-lipped, tight-fisted paranoid who would have no motive for advertising the fact that he was King only because his brothers-in-law were not available.
The Yorkists would not have supported Henry’s kingship if they had believed Edward’s sons were alive. As Christine Carpenter says, Henry was “the Yorkist household’s second-best substitute for Edward IV’s dead sons. That’s why, in the aftermath of the failed rebellion, Henry promised to marry Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth if he ever became king.”
Richard III only reigned for 26 MONTHS. And most of that time, he was struggling with a disintegrating kingdom and a rival supported by Yorkist loyalists. He did not have time to erase his subjects’ memories of how he betrayed the members of his own party through usurpation and bloodshed. If he would have displayed Edward’s and Richard’s bodies, it might have stopped talk of their still being alive, but asking people to believe they died through natural causes would not have been credible, given Richard’s very recent history.
Christina,
We do not need “proof” to make an assumption, and the character of Richard III warrants the assumption that he did them in; or approved their murder, if one chooses to believe the “records” of the king of Portugal, which record that Buckingham starved them to death.
We can also assume that Richard III would have displayed the princes if they were still alive after Buckingham’s rebellion, as a measure to keep the disaffected Yorkists from adhering to Henry Tudor – and of course, this is what brought down Richard III, the Yorkists who adhered to Tudor in 1485, or betrayed King Richard at Bosworth. Therefore, we can assume with assurance that the two princes were dead by the time of Buckingham’s rebellion.
As far as “proof” is concerned, the Yorkists who joined in Buckingham’s rebellion assumed that the princes were dead, for why would they support Henry Tudor? It is a solid assumption that the princes were believed to be dead before Buckingham rebelled. In fact, I believe that they were dead when Buckingham retired to Brecon in early August, 1483, and that reports of their death must have circulated widely.
On this, I believe that Richard failed to grasp that the south of England did not share the antipathy toward the Woodvilles, that Richard had encountered in the north of England. In other words, imo Richard miscalculated on the strength of the opposition to his usurpation.
Finally, I would put that “proving” Richard as innocent of the murder of the princes is more problematic than “proving” that he did, as we have better reason to suppose that he did, rather than to suppose that he did not.
Well said, Robert!