Who Killed the Princes in the Tower

[jeremyp]

Just read this on the "What are you Watching" thread and thought I'd start  new thread rather than derail it.

Watched this on the Princes in the Tower from last year on Channel 4. Interesting example of presenting strawman, and false dichotomy, and Robert Rinder appearing to prostitute his 'expertise'.

Note, there is not enough evidence to decide that Richard the Thurd murdered the Princes in the Tower but despite the way that it is presented in the programme that's not been the position generally taken. It's been highly questioned for a long time.


https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence

While it is true that there is no "smoking gun", Richard III is far and away the most likely candidate for ordering their murder. In fact, as the person usurping Edward V, if it wasn't Richard, he almost certainly would have got around to it sooner or later. It was simply too dangerous to leave them alive.

He also had easy access to the princes and plenty of lieutenants prepared to do the deed for him.

Most historians of the period would agree that it was probably Richard III that did it.

[Nearly Sane]

Just read this on the "What are you Watching" thread and thought I'd start  new thread rather than derail it.

While it is true that there is no "smoking gun", Richard III is far and away the most likely candidate for ordering their murder. In fact, as the person usurping Edward V, if it wasn't Richard, he almost certainly would have got around to it sooner or later. It was simply too dangerous to leave them alive.

He also had easy access to the princes and plenty of lieutenants prepared to do the deed for him.

Most historians of the period would agree that it was probably Richard III that did it.

The programme was arguing that he definitely didn't do it, and was presenting it as if any doubt cast on his guilt was a huge step forward in making that case.

[jeremyp]

The programme was arguing that he definitely didn't do it

Ah, OK. I'll have to watch it. I might have been confusing it with the programme that says he definitely did do it and provided some flimsy evidence involving a chain of office and a will that they claim is the "smoking gun".

and was presenting it as if any doubt cast on his guilt was a huge step forward in making that case.

I won't say "definitely" but I am reasonably sure he did do it.

[Steve H]

Cui bono? Dick three, that's cui! Of course he murdered them (or, more likely, had them murdered).

[Nearly Sane]

Cui bono? Dick three, that's cui! Of course he murdered them (or, more likely, had them murdered).

The programme's case was that they weren't murdered at all and that the pretenders, Perkin Warbeck, and Lambert Simnel, were the princes.

[Steve H]

What about the two child skeletons found under a staircase during renovation work in 1674?

[Nearly Sane]

What about the two child skeletons found under a staircase during renovation work in 1674?

That the examination in the 1930s wasn't unbiased, that there is no dna, and that other skeletons have been found.

See wiki entry for more details.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

If Rinder had just said there was reasonable doubt about the case against R3 then I would have been OK but he found it to be beyond reasonable doubt that one at least of the pretenders was one of the princes.

It's probably worth pointing out that his partner in the crime was Philippa Langley