Is there any evidence that Henry VII killed the princes in the tower?

Question

And what were his reasons?

Thanks.

xxxx.

Answer 1

Since Henry VII was in exile in France until 1485, he's got a pretty good alibi that he didn't kill the princes in London in 1483.

Answer 2

I thought it was Richard III no?

The suspects

Richard III of England had eliminated the princes from the succession. However, his hold on the monarchy was not secure, and the princes remained a threat as long as they were alive. They themselves were not a threat, but Richard's enemies could have launched rebellions in their names. Rumours of their death were in wide circulation by late 1483, but Richard never attempted to prove that they were alive by having them seen in public, which strongly suggests that they were dead by then (or at a minimum, not under his control). Rather, he remained completely silent on the matter. At the very least, it would have been in his political interest to order an investigation into the disappearance of the Princes if they had simply vanished. As the brothers' protector (having obtained them as 'protectorate' from their mother), he appears to have failed to 'protect' them. Modern historians, including David Starkey [1], Michael Hicks[2] and Alison Weir[3], regard him as the most likely culprit.

Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was Richard's right-hand man and sought personal advantage through the new king. Some regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after rebelling against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out because Buckingham had taken it on himself—for whatever reason—to dispose of Richard's rival claimants; alternatively, he could have been acting on behalf of Henry Tudor (later to become King Henry VII of England). Buckingham was also descended from previous kings and his claim was considered by many to be stronger than Henry's. Buckingham's guilt depends on the princes having already been dead by October 1483, as Buckingham was executed the following month.

King Henry VII of England (Henry Tudor) following his accession, proceeded to find a legal excuse to execute some of the rival claimants to the throne. He married the princes' eldest sister, Elizabeth of York, to reinforce his hold on the throne, but her right to inherit depended on both her brothers being already dead. Realistically, Henry's only opportunity to murder the princes would have been after his accession in 1485. His mother Margaret Beaufort is also suspected, as is her third husband, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, but these suspicions remain unproven.

John Howard, later the first Duke of Norfolk of the current creation, was a claimant to the estate of the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk. He was given custody of the Tower of London under less than regular circumstances the night the Princes are supposed to have disappeared from the Tower [citation needed]. He had opportunity and motive—Prince Richard, Duke of York, was also Duke of Norfolk in right of his deceased child bride Anne, the daughter of the last Mowbray Duke.

Answer 3

No. However, most people believed it was  their uncle, Richard III of England, placed them both in the Tower of London (then a royal residence as well as a prison) in 1483, and they were never seen again. Their fate remains unknown, although many presume them to have been killed there. However, it is not certain that the princes were murdered at all. Child mortality was extremely high during the era, and it is plausible that the princes died natural deaths.

Another suspect was King Henry VII.  Henry Tudor following his accession, proceeded to find a legal excuse to execute some of the rival claimants to the throne. He married the princes' eldest sister, Elizabeth of York, to reinforce his hold on the throne, but her right to inherit depended on both her brothers being already dead. Realistically, Henry's only opportunity to murder the princes would have been after his accession in 1485. His mother Margaret Beaufort is also suspected, as is her third husband, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, but these suspicions remain unproven.

Answer 4

Its Richard the third you're thinking of and no one really knows, although its unlikely he did it himself, he'd have got a lacky to do it.

Answer 5

I think you mean Richard III.  The boys were travelling to meet Richard when the disappeared.  One of the boys was the rightful king of England, Edward V.  The other was his brother and, thus, next in line for the throne.  Their disappearance made Richard king, as he was next in line.  There's no physical proof, but it was awfully convenient for Richard.  If he did kill them, there's no reason for it to have happened at the tower.  A while back the skeletons of two boys were found in the tower, and there was a lot of _speculation_ that it was Edward and his brother, but nothing on them that could be taken as evidence of their identity.

Answer 6

He diddn`t...it was Richard 3.

Answer 7

There is no evidence that points to that so any reasons U could come up with would have to be purely circumstantial; i.e. he wanted to blame Richard III to make him appear 'evil' and also rid himself of the last remnants of the House of York. However, even this thinking doesn't really add up. Henry VII as Edmund Tudor kicking his heels in Wales / France was only persuaded to make a run for kingship and given backing after it was realised that the princes were dead and that there were no others to restore the House of York.

Answer 8

The royals had even more power in those days,,maybe they were rubbed out and it was all covered up just like todays Royals when Diana was rubbed out

Answer 9

That would be a big NO!!!

Answer 10

No, just like there is no evidence that Richard III did it, either.

It's all a guessing game.

Answer 11

no

Answer 12

I really can't answer your question well, but I suggest you read "Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. It has some great conclusions about that very subject.

Answer 13

No one knows who was behind the murder of the Two Little Princes whose bodies were discovered in the White Tower. The Tudors firmly pointed the finger at Richard III but  many scholars now name King Henry VII as the real culprit. In 1933 a forensic examination conducted by Mr. Tannery and Professor Wright was unable to confirm whether the bones discovered in the White Tower were those of the Princes in the Tower.

Answer 14

It was Richard III. And there is some proof that 2 boys were killed in the tower, but no proof as to who did it. The proof was found a few years ago when the bodies of 2 boys were found in the tower walls. The bones were tested and were proved to be from around that time. If it was him, the reasons were that the 2 princes were heirs to the throne. One of them was due to become King after his father had died. Richard was declared their protector until the young prince had been crowned, but always claimed that his older brother had been illegitamate. The young princes knew the truth, and Richard wanted the crown. So, he may have had the Princes murdered by a guard. There is evidence that he himself would not have been able to murder the princes, so it would have had to be a guard because he was not physically strong enough to do so.

Answer 15

I love history! They did find some bones in there I'm pretty sure. Thats if I remember right from school.

Answer 16

Try reading "The Princes in the Tower" by Alison Weir. She excavates all the available evidence which has survived and presents a compelling case against Richard III. There IS good evidence still around, but none at all against Henry VII. The real puzzle would be why Richard did not produce the princes before the batle of Bosworth, which would have saved his life & the throne  for the Yorks. The answer has to be because they were already dead & Richard knew it.