193 The Blood of Innocents

In 1483, the gates of the Tower of London closed on two innocent and defenceless boys; one, Edward, 12, captured and the other Richard, 10, given up by his mother. As far as we know, neither of were seen outside the walls again. The London Chronicles accused Richard III of shedding 'Blood of Innocents'.

This week's episode talks about what we do know and what we don't, and presents the pros and cons of 4 possible answers. And then, see the results below of the debate and poll we had on who was responsible!

193 The Blood of Innocents

 The Poll Result

There were four options, as below...and sadly it appears that although the History of England Podcast listeners are firm friends of Richard, we also think he had the boys killed. And it wasn't terribly close either, as you can see from the chart. Much regret was expressed by many for choosing option A. Interesting debate though all round - especially if it was really so unbelievable that both could have died from natural causes. Maybe they did. And also maybe it was Livia...which made me laugh. It was fun - thanks to everyone who took part. 

 

 

Comments

[Albert Jan de Rooij]

There's a relatively new (2015) and interesting book - The Secrets of the House of York by Marylynn Salmon - that contains a very original theory about the fate of the princes. In short: both were hidden away, one of them became known as Erasmus of Rotterdam (Edward V) and lived in the Low Countries, the other (Richard) went to the south of Europe and emerged much later as Perkin Warbeck, Now, to one of the leading experts on Erasmus in the Netherlands, this theory about Erasmus is absolute nonsense. However, one can never be sure about the past without conclusive evidence, can't they?

[Tim Wilson]

A. Richard totally did them in

[Richard Jerrett]

A - He totes murdered them!

[Conrad Sheldon]

Colonel Mustard did it with the pipe wrench...

[NYCJulieNYC]

1. I agree w/Tim Wilson & Richard Jerrett--Richard killed them.

2. I might have been willing to consider Conrad Sheldon's theory about Colonel Mustard & the pipe wrench, but it wasn't one of the options.

3. Can this count as a vote? I do not have a FB account.

[The History of England]

Hi All...Totes thanks for the book recommendation. Does it also include Colonel Mustard's contribution?

Julie, Yup, your vote is duly recorded!

[Kevin]

A. Richard did the Deed

[Kay]

A. Richard doesn't look good here.

[Melanie Jackson]

D. As David notes, Henry had young Warwick killed. Richard did not. (Also, Henry just looks devious and slippery.)

[David Gunn]

A - totally

[Alan Allport]

I don't have a FB account, so I hope you'll accept this message as an alternative (does being a monthly donator help to grease the wheels? ;-))
I'm going with A, but I wonder if you dismiss too readily the chance that both boys died of natural causes around the same time. The sweating sickness arrived in England from the continent no later than 1485, and it's possible that in undiagnosed form it may have reached London a year or two earlier. Certainly the mysterious disease's ability to kill people, children especially, in very short time is attested by later examples, for example the two sons of the Duke of Suffolk, who died within hours of one another in 1551. Had this occurred to Edward and Richard, their uncle would have been well advised to hush the whole thing up: would anyone have believed him that some hitherto unknown plague had suddenly killed off the two royal claimants?

[The History of England]

Allan, I'm not a proud man. yes, being a monthly donator gets you pretty much any privilege. Do you have any shoes need cleaning...?

I must admit there are a few people saying the same - though I must admit I'd not heard of the sweating sickness. I shall post it on FB on your behalf. I have to say none of the historians I have read cover the possibility since I guess it is simply unknowable. It would have a terrible symmetry though - Richard III comes across as an impulsive guy who rides his luck - and sadly doesn't seem to have much luck to ride

So Kevin, Kay , Melanie, David and Allan - votes duly recorded!

[Lori Otta]

I think Margaret had a huge hand in it, but she wasn't alone. She was obsessed with her son being King and crazy and cunning enough to come up with a plan but knew better than to get her hands dirty. so she got an unnamed commoner who had a way into the tower to actually kill the poor boys.

[Armine]

A - Richard.

Because, if anyone else had killed them, there is absolutely no reason why he would be silent in the face of accusations of such a horrific crime. The "nobody would believe him" argument makes no sense. Everybody already thought Richard guilty, so what did he have to lose? It just doesnt add up!

And the idea of them being hidden away and reappearing later... Unfortunately I feel thats just wishfull thinking to make us feel better. He wouldn't have taken such a chance.

[Julie J]

A - Richard. It makes sense to me that either Richard did it or it was done on his behalf by someone else. I think the princes were dead before Henry could have access to them, although I certainly wouldn't put it past Margaret if she saw an opportunity.

[Peter Stekel]

At this late date I don't believe it's possible to say one way or the other who killed the boys. Evidence can be interpreted to lay the killings on multiple heads, as David's last program makes very clear. However, I believe it's possible to assign responsibility for the boy's deaths. That would be Richard. Whether he killed them, had them killed, or Bucky did the deed, or Maggie with son Henny, offed the little bairns, they were under Richard's care. He was responsible for their care, they died, so I'll have to say, Dickie did it.

[The History of England]

I'm really interested as to why Margaret Beaufort has such a negative image. I feel it too! But why? All she did was fight the corner for her only son, essentially...interesting! And yet she is indeed rather difficult to like. Sounds like the mother in law from hell also.

[John Klotz]

My vote: Richard had his nephews killed. I may be totally jaded by all the history podcasts I have been listening too, but it is clear to me: This is what they did

[Peter Stekel]

Margaret Beaufort. A strong woman willing to act like a man of her times if it meant she could protect her son. Even today such women are reviled.

[Maryel]

B. Ricardians forever!

[Tim Kimsey]

Occam's razor - Richard did it.

[John trevelyan]

All the suspects would likely have killed them if they had the opportunity. As it happened Richard had custody so I guess he's in the frame fit this one.

[NYCJulieNYC]

For those who want more Richard III, you might check out his political advice column for American presidential hopefuls from a December 2015 New Yorker at http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/ask-king-richard-iii-political-advice-column

He also has a nice song in BBC Horrible Histories https://youtu.be/4ujihmDglLw

You can folllw Richard III on Twitter at @richard_third

@richard_third has gotten into some Twitter arguments of late with Henry VIII whose handle is @KngHnryVIII (and @KngHnryVIII is worth a follow in his own right as he can help you get into the spirit of the Tudors).

I have David Crowther to thank for these discoveries as, until his recent podcasts I never really turned my mind to the nephew murderer. So thank you David!

[Jim Hendrickson]

I have a facebook account, but I wasn't allowed to vote. :-(

[The History of England]

Jim, why? How come you were so horribly excluded?