Did Richard III kill his nephews ? (was PK real?)

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
His death is so sad honestly he was psychologically damaged due to being imprisoned in the tower his whole life basically and thought to not be a threat because he was viewed as - slow and that's why I hate H7. H7 married his sister to his half cousin on his mother's side - a man of much lower birth and H8 had her executed which turned out to be the most horrific execution ever. (she was hacked to death by a novice and wouldn't lie still)
I love Margaret Pole. Defiant to death! I always envision her as secretly hating H7 and plotting revenge for her brother. Too much Phillipa Gregory! Wasn't she at one point so poor she had to give her child to the church... Reginald. I like the way she named her daughter Ursula after some mythological witch... Though that might come from too much Phillipa Gregory also 😊
 
  • Heart
Reactions: 1
yeah knew there was something like that in place but then why did H7 have him killed/locked in the tower because he was such a threat
An Act of Attainder can be repealed by Parliament, and Edward could have been used as a figurehead for a rebellion. H7 claim to the throne was a very weak one. I think he waited until Edward was a decent age then have him executed.
 
Oh my this is my thread and you are my people!

I wish they'd test the bones found so we could know once and for all. Whilst I don't believe everything that is written about Richard lll as the tudors and Shakespeare tainted him I think he killed those boys to gain the throne. Wasnt there something about him trying to marry Elizabeth, his neice, or a Spanish princess. He probably thought he had time to create his own heirs.
In the Phillippa Gregory book he and Eluzabeth of York wanted to marry. She married Henry vii but I dont know if the Richard iii is true.

His death is so sad honestly he was psychologically damaged due to being imprisoned in the tower his whole life basically and thought to not be a threat because he was viewed as - slow and that's why I hate H7. H7 married his sister to his half cousin on his mother's side - a man of much lower birth and H8 had her executed which turned out to be the most horrific execution ever. (she was hacked to death by a novice and wouldn't lie still)
My son has a Horrible Histories book about History's worst murderers. Henry viii is in there because of all the people he had put to death. About 70,000 I think many for spurious reasons. I think he was a megalomaniac and completely mad. He basically divorced Anne of Cleves and killed Kathryn Howard because he was fat and impotent and they were young and couldn't hide their disgust for him. The Duke of Norfolk was another bastard offering up his nieces to him for his own advancement.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Apologies for being a dunce, what does PK stand for in the thread title?
Hi that's my bad actually I was thinking about Perkin Warbeck and wrote PK instead of PW

An Act of Attainder can be repealed by Parliament, and Edward could have been used as a figurehead for a rebellion. H7 claim to the throne was a very weak one. I think he waited until Edward was a decent age then have him executed.
see I understand that, and that's what I don't understand about Richard III, if it could have been repealed why didnt Richard put out a hit on him too? especially since he had the better claim after the princes in the tower..

In the Phillippa Gregory book he and Eluzabeth of York wanted to marry. She married Henry vii but I dont know if the Richard iii is true.


My son has a Horrible Histories book about History's worst murderers. Henry viii is in there because of all the people he had put to death. About 70,000 I think many for spurious reasons. I think he was a megalomaniac and completely mad. He basically divorced Anne of Cleves and killed Kathryn Howard because he was fat and impotent and they were young and couldn't hide their disgust for him. The Duke of Norfolk was another bastard offering up his nieces to him for his own advancement.
Henry viii was a monster, one theory I find interesting though is that his jousting accident completely affected his personality. In a course I had we studied a man in the 1800's who had a rod I believe go through his eye into a part of his brain - which happened to be the part that controls social norms amongst other things, one consequence of that was that this guy went from a normal behaved man to a man who would touch women innapropriately, swear at odd times all because of a brain lesion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Henry was also in constant pain in later life from a leg ulcer which undoubtedly contributed to his moods. His rotting leg stank to high heaven too 🤮
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I’m not sure (how lovely is Aneurin Barnard btw?), it always struck me that it was so easy to blame Richard 3 for their deaths and those that would have benefited from their deaths was never really looked into.
 
  • Heart
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Not to derail (she says whilst about to derail) Had anyone read the conspiracy theories by alexandra Walsh? They are purely fiction and she states no truth but such an interesting read of the Elizabeth / Mary Queen of Scots time.

I struggle with R3 because ignoring tudor propagander it seems like he was a good king and brother to Edward. He seems the most likely candidate as he had the most reason to though.
 
see I understand that, and that's what I don't understand about Richard III, if it could have been repealed why didnt Richard put out a hit on him too? especially since he had the better claim after the princes in the tower..
Yes, you are right to be puzzled, and so are a lot of historians. The best answer to that is he was insurance for the succession if Richard didn't have any more children, and perhaps as a son of a traitor no one wanted to use him as a figurehead, so Richard felt safe. Its quite possible that Richard would have done the same as Henry when Edward was older then had him executed, as of course, he wasn't adverse to bumping off his nephews (as the theory goes ;-) ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Not to derail (she says whilst about to derail) Had anyone read the conspiracy theories by alexandra Walsh? They are purely fiction and she states no truth but such an interesting read of the Elizabeth / Mary Queen of Scots time.

I struggle with R3 because ignoring tudor propagander it seems like he was a good king and brother to Edward. He seems the most likely candidate as he had the most reason to though.
never heard of that one but briefly what is it about? and exactly he was apparently a hero in the north, and it's puzzling how in 6 months he completely changed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
never heard of that one but briefly what is it about? and exactly he was apparently a hero in the north, and it's puzzling how in 6 months he completely changed
It's 3 book trilogy... Catherine Howard, E1 and Arbella Stuart. Its more for fans of historical fiction but it's so interesting... Completely made up but a spin on some of the wild rumours regarding Catherine Howard being pregnant, paternity of Mary Queen of Scots, lettice Knowles relationship with E1. Just a really good read. But totally made up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Yes, you are right to be puzzled, and so are a lot of historians. The best answer to that is he was insurance for the succession if Richard didn't have any more children, and perhaps as a son of a traitor no one wanted to use him as a figurehead, so Richard felt safe. Its quite possible that Richard would have done the same as Henry when Edward was older then had him executed, as of course, he wasn't adverse to bumping off his nephews (as the theory goes ;-) ).
that would make sense since H7 already had heirs he wouldnt need that insurance ... wonder if elizabeth talked to H7 to prevent it. He was her cousin.

Now I'm wondering why H7 wouldn't want to take out other york heirs descended from Richard the 3rd and Edward the 4th's sisters wouldn't they be a threat too? why let Maggie live? - they would all be descendants from female lines but wouldn't their claim be stronger then H7's ? maybe I'm way off base here..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1
that would make sense since H7 already had heirs he wouldnt need that insurance ... wonder if elizabeth talked to H7 to prevent it. He was her cousin.

Now I'm wondering why H7 wouldn't want to take out other york heirs descended from Richard the 3rd and Edward the 4th's sisters wouldn't they be a threat too? why let Maggie live? - they would all be descendants from female lines but wouldn't their claim be stronger then H7's ? maybe I'm way off base here..
They were women, so in those days, they didn't count.
 
They were women, so in those days, they didn't count.
Wasn't it expected of a queen to beg her husband for clemency of some convicted criminals. I wonder if Elizabeth tried this with Edward of Warwick or her brother / imposter
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I think Richard was an excellent man and king. I can imagine he could see the necessity for eliminating his nephews on a purely political level - he knew the country needed a strong, adult monarch and no more upheavals and instability which rival claimants and especially boy kings would bring about. I don't think it was possible to be a medieval king who was both good for his country and an exemplary moral character as we would understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
I think Richard was an excellent man and king. I can imagine he could see the necessity for eliminating his nephews on a purely political level - he knew the country needed a strong, adult monarch and no more upheavals and instability which rival claimants and especially boy kings would bring about. I don't think it was possible to be a medieval king who was both good for his country and an exemplary moral character as we would understand it.
Actually I think you're correct. I never thought of that. I thought he was a good King therefore he couldn't have killed his nephews but that's a good point. It was a very violent time and Monarchs werent pointless figurehead they are today. They had huge amounts of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Actually I think you're correct. I never thought of that. I thought he was a good King therefore he couldn't have killed his nephews but that's a good point. It was a very violent time and Monarchs werent pointless figurehead they are today. They had huge amounts of power.
yeah thats a good point. now would it have been possible for them to escape also question: let's assume both boys died that night, and they were hidden under the staircase in the tower, wouldn't that have made noise? a commotion? was there construction that could have helped hide them without making much of a disturbance? it's just weird that all in one night people could murder them, and dig a hole in the tower and bury them without anyone noticing a thing... Also pretty sure Richard fired their servants, guards before then which is sus in my opinion. Also I saw in a documentary that in the coming weeks edward was praying as if he knew he was going to die.
 
I don’t think they were buried that night. The bones were found in a chest behind a staircase. It could have been prepared beforehand or they were disposed of days later.

They were definitely hidden and anything identifying taken from them. As I said previously, if they aren’t the boys who are they ? If only they would allow the bones to be tested !!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1