Stannis Baratheon is Richard III

[In A Coat of Gold]

We don't know when the princes died.It was a rumour since no one knew what happened neither at the time or today all you are making is pure speculation and your personal opinion who has the same value as anyone else

The rumors were swirling since September of 1483. Richard was not deaf. It was openly rumored that the boys were dead. The rebellion in October was originally to try to free Edward from the tower. Henry Tudor was only useful in that they thought he could persuade the Duke of Brittany to assist them. Once Buckingham let slip that the boys were dead, only then did the support swell around Henry.

[In A Coat of Gold]

The evidence for Richard having killed or ordered the deaths of even one of his nephews is entirely circumstantial. It's far more likely someone on his team did it without his knowledge, hoping to curry favor, than that he was involved at all.

Henry was in Brittany. But where was his mother?

Henry was at the absolute fringe of English politics. He'd spent most of his life in France and Brittany as a hostage. The most he could have ever hoped for was to be Earl of Richmond. But, yeah, let's ignore the guy with the most to gain from the murders, who had complete custody of the boys. Let's blame Margaret Beaufort. Hell, Henry didn't even have the strongest claim on the Beaufort side either. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, had a stronger claim. He had the bastard Beaufort blood and blood from Thomas of Woodstock, son of Edward III. Henry was at the back of the line of succession. There is no motive for her to have ordered the boys' death nor opportunity.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Henry was at the absolute fringe of English politics. He'd spent most of his life in France and Brittany as a hostage. The most he could have ever hoped for was to be Earl of Richmond. But, yeah, let's ignore the guy with the most to gain from the murders, who had complete custody of the boys. Let's blame Margaret Beaufort. Hell, Henry didn't even have the strongest claim on the Beaufort side either. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, had a stronger claim. He had the bastard Beaufort blood and blood from Thomas of Woodstock, son of Edward III. Henry was at the back of the line of succession. There is no motive for her to have ordered the boys' death nor opportunity.

The most Henry could have hoped for was to be Earl of Richmond? Clearly not.

Yes, and I also mentioned Buckingham as a major suspect up-thread. You might have noticed that if you weren't so bent on one line of thought.

You don't know who had opportunity. It's not like a woman who was well-known would personally do the deed. Obviously she'd pay/bribe/blackmail someone who DID have access to them. Really, where's your creativity? I'm comforted that you would never make a very good criminal, In A Coat Of Gold. It would never occur to you that Margaret might convince Buckingham to do it, expecting to let him take the fall, thereby getting her boy one step closer to the throne.

The guy you claim had the most to gain by the boys' deaths actually didn't. Killing your relatives is not good PR. He's the one who had absolutely the most to lose, given the tenuous hold he had on the crown. The man was not an idiot. He would have realized how it would play out, and he would get the worst. Just because he technically had custody of the boys doesn't mean someone else didn't get to them

By the way, kindly stop acting as if I'm saying for certain that Margaret Beaufort did it, or that Henry did it, or even that Buckingham did it. I'm suggesting possibilities. I'm not filing charges.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

<snip

It appears that burying them in the tower proved to be the best choice, because their bodies weren't found for centuries and still have not been positively identified, so it can't be true that taking them out would have been better.

Salient point. Why haven't those bodies been identified? If it was Edward and Richard, you'd think someone would have found out and shouted out from the rooftops that the Princes in the Tower have been found at last.

What if those bodies weren't theirs? What if someone pulled a switch? What if Perkin was actually Richard? We may never get the answers to these questions.

[In A Coat of Gold]

The most Henry could have hoped for was to be Earl of Richmond? Clearly not.

Yes. He's the luckiest man to ever sit the throne. His claim was paper thin.

Yes, and I also mentioned Buckingham as a major suspect up-thread. You might have noticed that if you weren't so bent on one line of thought.

There is no bigger suspect than Richard, who benefited from their deaths and had custody of the boys.

You don't know who had opportunity. It's not like a woman who was well-known would personally do the deed. Obviously she'd pay/bribe/blackmail someone who DID have access to them. Really, where's your creativity? I'm comforted that you would never make a very good criminal, In A Coat Of Gold. It would never occur to you that Margaret might convince Buckingham to do it, expecting to let him take the fall, thereby getting her boy one step closer to the throne.

She, nor Stanley, had as much opportunity as Richard did. he had full custody of the boys in the Tower of London, and most benefited from their deaths. One step closer? There was still the Earl of Warwick and the De La Poles with better claims. Not only that, but once Buckinham was fingered for fomenting the Kentish rebellion, Richard knew that Margaret and Stanley were plotting against him. Why not finger them for the boys' murder then? Richard wasn't shameless in usurping the throne and even going as far as to insinuate that Edward IV wasn't actually the son of Richard, Duke of York, thereby embarrassing his own mother. The guy is absolutely ruthless

The guy you claim had the most to gain by the boys' deaths actually didn't. Killing your relatives is not good PR. He's the one who had absolutely the most to lose, given the tenuous hold he had on the crown. The man was not an idiot. He would have realized how it would play out, and he would get the worst. Just because he technically had custody of the boys doesn't mean someone else didn't get to them

He figured exactly how it would play out, but he expected his kingmaker, Buckingham to continue supporting him. Together, they could put down any force a beggar exile like Henry could put forth. Hell, even when Henry and he met on Bosworth, Richard outnumbered him and was the better commander. Killing the boys secures his son's claim(before he died)

By the way, kindly stop acting as if I'm saying for certain that Margaret Beaufort did it, or that Henry did it, or even that Buckingham did it. I'm suggesting possibilities. I'm not filing charges.

Your "possibilities" aren't even veiled in the attempt to deflect blame from Richard. The "possibilities" are much more implausible than Richard continuing to act ruthlessly.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Salient point. Why haven't those bodies been identified? If it was Edward and Richard, you'd think someone would have found out and shouted out from the rooftops that the Princes in the Tower have been found at last.

What if those bodies weren't theirs? What if someone pulled a switch? What if Perkin was actually Richard? We may never get the answers to these questions.

There is an argument that maybe Elizabeth never gave Richard III her Prince Richard, or maybe once Edward IV recovered the throne, he had his son sent across the channel.

Either way, I don't believe for a second that the boy Henry fingered as "Perkin Warbeck" was the son of a boatman in Tournai. Way too many coincidences. This boy has the same defective eye and drooping eye lid that many Plantagenets have had. He squires for Edward IV's godson and is introduced to the royal court of Portugal. His aunt Margaret for years paid for the upkeep of a young boy

From an extremely thoroughly researched book by Anne Wroe "The Perfect Prince: The Mystery of Perkin Warbeck and His Quest for the Throne of England"

The chair showed her advancing age. She was growing weak and had been ill for much of the year, with her Masses and devotions multiplying. Yet she had not ceased her semi-secret acts of charity. In July 1499 she undertook to pay for the upbringing of “a little English child” from the revenues of her estates at Rupelmonde. The child was put to nurse with the family of Pieter van Tiemple, from his name a Fleming of some substance. Van Tiemple was given, along with the little bundle, £144 tournois “to be used to the profit” of the child. There is no knowing where this child had come from, or what was supposed to happen to him next. Yet the money to be spent on him, though a large sum, was considerably less than Margaret had spent on the last child she had taken under her wing.

That child had come into her life more than twenty years before, in the autumn of 1478: the first year after Charles’s death, and the year when Mary, her beloved stepdaughter, gave birth to her first child, a son. Sometime after September a little boy called Jehan le Sage, “good little John,” was taken into her palace at Binche, her favorite country retreat in the hills of Hainault, to live there at her expense and to be educated by a priest. He was then “about five,” the same age as Richard, Duke of York. Jehan appeared to be an orphan and his name a nickname: the same name, as it happens, as Edward IV’s favorite jester, who had accompanied Margaret on her wedding-journey to Burgundy ten years earlier to soothe the distress of a long voyage. He was also, perhaps, an especially bright or wellmannered child who was thought likely to benefit from Margaret’s close attention. Although she helped other children, and provided scholarships, Jehan was the only one whose upbringing and teaching she personally supervised. Yet this was done at a distance and out of the public eye, a long way from Brussels or Malines, with Margaret often absent, and with the priest officially in charge of him.

Every year, for seven years, Margaret gave the priest £24 tournois for Jehan’s keep and his instruction; he did not seem to have his meals counted in with the other palace residents’. She also paid up to £12 a year for his “clothes, gear and other essentials.” For one precious year, 1479, when he was about six, his clothes and gear were itemized in the accounts. The list was then struck out, as though these details were not to be publicly recorded. He had a robe of costly scarlet cloth for Easter, a “jacket of vesture” to wear underneath it, two shirts of fine linen, two doublets, a bonnet and a hat, three pairs of shoes. He was a very small boy; less than two ells of cloth made up his robe. His doublets were striped and laced with silk, and the “bonnet and hat,” usually worn together, turned him into a little nobleman. The insignia on his jacket was not improbably the one worn by Margaret’s escorts the next year in England, the white rose. That same year he was given, as presents, a rosary and a pair of skates. In his sharp shining shoes perhaps, skidding on the ice, he broke his leg, and the surgeon of Binche was paid £8 to mend it. The surgeon, Master Colart Fedorq, was not otherwise called on in twenty-seven years of accounts, and his fee for this treatment was probably a quarter of his annualsalary. But little Jehan was, in effect, Margaret’s child, and was cared for accordingly.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Yes. He's the luckiest man to ever sit the throne. His claim was paper thin.

He had right of arms, having defeated Richard, which he could well have done without the bloodline (though of course fewer people would have rallied to his cause had he not had royal blood). Henry fought specifically FOR the throne. Clearly he thought he had a decent claim. Clearly he was not hoping for just being Earl of Richmond. And you really think his mother wasn't in on his plans?

There is no bigger suspect than Richard, who benefited from their deaths and had custody of the boys.

I never said Richard wasn't a suspect, or that he wasn't the biggest. He was NOT the only person who would benefit from their deaths. He did not benefit from it. And he did not have the boys with him 24/7.

She, nor Stanley, had as much opportunity as Richard did. he had full custody of the boys in the Tower of London, and most benefited from their deaths. One step closer? There was still the Earl of Warwick and the De La Poles with better claims. Not only that, but once Buckinham was fingered for fomenting the Kentish rebellion, Richard knew that Margaret and Stanley were plotting against him. Why not finger them for the boys' murder then? Richard wasn't shameless in usurping the throne and even going as far as to insinuate that Edward IV wasn't actually the son of Richard, Duke of York, thereby embarrassing his own mother. The guy is absolutely ruthless

I didn't even mention Stanley. Richard having custody does not mean he was WITH the boys all the time, and no he was not the one who most benefited from their deaths. As I've said repeatedly, he had more to lose from their deaths than anyone else did.

Yes, eliminating ONE step, does make someone ONE step closer. That's how math works.

Why not finger Lord and Lady Stanley for the boys' murders? Oh maybe because he didn't have proof that they were dead. Or maybe they were actually alive.

Yes, Richard was ruthless. No argument. That does not make him stupid, or a murderer.

He figured exactly how it would play out, but he expected his kingmaker, Buckingham to continue supporting him. Together, they could put down any force a beggar exile like Henry could put forth. Hell, even when Henry and he met on Bosworth, Richard outnumbered him and was the better commander. Killing the boys secures his son's claim(before he died)

Killing the boys would not secure his son's claim unless he made it public that they were dead, which would have been the death knell for his reign because the people of England would never have forgiven the murder of his nephews, legitimate or not. And even then there was still Henry as a potential threat to frail, little Edward and quite frankly a bigger one. Neither of Edward's cousins would be launching armies from inside the Tower.

Your "possibilities" aren't even veiled in the attempt to deflect blame from Richard. The "possibilities" are much more implausible than Richard continuing to act ruthlessly.

Once again, ruthless is not the same as downright evil. Your lack of acceptance of other options is not even veiled in the demonization of Richard in a murder that may never even have taken place.

Most likely, more plausible, etc are not absolutes. Circumstantial evidence is not proof. You insist that Richard is a villain, I allow that he could be but am willing to consider other possible villains. If you want to judge someone without knowing the facts, based on what you consider most likely, well that's your problem I suppose.

I'm out.

[In A Coat of Gold]

He had right of arms, having defeated Richard, which he could well have done without the bloodline (though of course fewer people would have rallied to his cause had he not had royal blood). Henry fought specifically FOR the throne. Clearly he thought he had a decent claim. Clearly he was not hoping for just being Earl of Richmond. And you really think his mother wasn't in on his plans?

He had been negotiating his earldom with Edward IV before he died. Henry fought for the throne AFTER the boys were dead. He originally only wanted Richmond. His mother was negotiating his earldom.

I never said Richard wasn't a suspect, or that he wasn't the biggest. He was NOT the only person who would benefit from their deaths. He did not benefit from it. And he did not have the boys with him 24/7.

He had the boys under his control in the tower. He certainly stood to benefit more than anyone else as his son's claim was cemented with their deaths.

I didn't even mention Stanley. Richard having custody does not mean he was WITH the boys all the time, and no he was not the one who most benefited from their deaths. As I've said repeatedly, he had more to lose from their deaths than anyone else did.

The southern rebellions were for the princes and no one else. Killing them leaves the rebels with no one to rally around, and secures his son's inheritance.

Yes, eliminating ONE step, does make someone ONE step closer. That's how math works.

One step on many. He'd have to kill off the Earl of Warwick next, then Henry Stafford, the De La Poles. It's not reasonable to expect the Yorkist exiles to back him just because the princes are dead. It's a huge leap of faith to kill them. Not to mention that THEY HAD NO OPPORTUNITY!! None.

Why not finger Lord and Lady Stanley for the boys' murders? Oh maybe because he didn't have proof that they were dead. Or maybe they were actually alive.

Then why not produce them? The rumors were swirling that they were dead. Produce them in London to quell the rumors and stop the Yorkists from backing Tudor. Oh, he couldn't produce Edward V, because Edward was murdered.

Yes, Richard was ruthless. No argument. That does not make him stupid, or a murderer.

He was a murderer. He ordered the deaths of Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey, William Hastings, Thomas Vaughan and more. All with zero proof and no trial. He was ruthless AND a murderer.

Killing the boys would not secure his son's claim unless he made it public that they were dead, which would have been the death knell for his reign because the people of England would never have forgiven the murder of his nephews, legitimate or not. And even then there was still Henry as a potential threat to frail, little Edward and quite frankly a bigger one. Neither of Edward's cousins would be launching armies from inside the Tower.

Actually it would. He allowed the rumor to spread without denouncing it because he knew it was true. Confirming it allows the Yorkist loyalists to look elsewhere and have a rallying cry. Keeping quiet allows rumors to be rumors. Upon his son's ascension, they would let it slip. Richard obviously hoped that good kingship would overcome his murderous acts. He just never got to. Henry was not a threat. He was a beggar exile. Poor with only his mother as the base of support. If Edward lives, Henry maybe gets his earldom. His family is nowhere near as powerful as the Woodvilles were before Richard usurped the throne.

Once again, ruthless is not the same as downright evil. Your lack of acceptance of other options is not even veiled in the demonization of Richard in a murder that may never even have taken place.

Richard was ruthless and evil. His track record plays it out. He ordered the murders of his opposition. He stole his nephews' birthright. He stole lands without trial. He was a terrible person. Him ordering the murders of his nephews is not out of character.

Most likely, more plausible, etc are not absolutes. Circumstantial evidence is not proof. You insist that Richard is a villain, I allow that he could be but am willing to consider other possible villains. If you want to judge someone without knowing the facts, based on what you consider most likely, well that's your problem I suppose.

I insist that Richard murdered Edward V. That says nothing of the greedy and suspicious nature of Henry VII. They can both be evil. The problem is that Henry isn't even in the country and is at the fringe of English politics. There are numerous people with better claims to the throne. His mother does not have control of the Tower of London. His mother does not have anywhere near the motive that Richard does. Even suspecting her shows how much you want to deflect blame. The guy did it.

I'm out.

[LordQorgyle]

How does killing your opposition in that time was being evil, then everyone was evil at the time, every king killed rivals, Edward IV killed his own brother, Elisabeth killed her cousin, at that time it was kill or being killed

If you are so sure that Richard killed the princes why didn't he kill Warwick since he was before him in the line too?You read too much Shakespeare and put as a consumated fact what is a fiction made to get the simpathy of a ruling house..There is no proof or evidence that the princes died in the tower, or that they died, there is no proof that Warbeck wasn't Richard..

And again Richard had much more to lose by killing the princes than anyone else and nothing to win

[In A Coat of Gold]

How does killing your opposition in that time was being evil, then everyone was evil at the time, every king killed rivals, Edward IV killed his own brother, Elisabeth killed her cousin, at that time it was kill or being killed

If you are so sure that Richard killed the princes why didn't he kill Warwick since he was before him in the line too?You read too much Shakespeare and put as a consumated fact what is a fiction made to get the simpathy of a ruling house..There is no proof or evidence that the princes died in the tower, or that they died, there is no proof that Warbeck wasn't Richard..

And again Richard had much more to lose by killing the princes than anyone else and nothing to win

He killed the Woodvilles with no trial. He conifscated their lands with no trial.

Edward killed George after he gave him chance after chance. He had to have been the most patient brother ever. That still doesn't excuse Richard murdering his innocent nephews.

Actually, I've never even seen Richard III by Shakespeare nor read the script. Warwick was disinherited and had no base of support. He was mentally handicapped by his imprisonment and his father was a traitor. He was no threat.

[LordQorgyle]

He killed the Woodvilles with no trial. He conifscated their lands with no trial.

Edward killed George after he gave him chance after chance. He had to have been the most patient brother ever. That still doesn't excuse Richard murdering his innocent nephews.

Actually, I've never even seen Richard III by Shakespeare nor read the script. Warwick was disinherited and had no base of support. He was mentally handicapped by his imprisonment and his father was a traitor. He was no threat.

How do you know he killed is nephews?

Again how do you know Perkin wasn't Richard?How do you know that they didn't die from a decease?

And you keep transforming assumptions in facts it is a mith that Warwick was mentally handicapped it isn't a fact

[In A Coat of Gold]

How do you know he killed is nephews?

Again how do you know Perkin wasn't Richard?How do you know that they didn't die from a decease?

And you keep transforming assumptions in facts it is a mith that Warwick was mentally handicapped it isn't a fact

How do I know? Well, firstly, he had them imprisoned. He had complete custody of them. They posed a threat to him and his son. They were never seen again.

I actually think Warbeck might have been Prince Richard. He certainly was no boatman's son from Tournai. That story has no teeth. If they had died from disease, why not openly say so and have their bodies put on display?

It wasn't a myth. One of the few mentions of Warwick was that he was limited mentally having been imprisoned for most of his life.

[Cas Stark]

How do you know he killed is nephews?

Again how do you know Perkin wasn't Richard?How do you know that they didn't die from a decease?

And you keep transforming assumptions in facts it is a mith that Warwick was mentally handicapped it isn't a fact

Process of elmination, motive and the timeline. He had control of the boys, he imprisoned them, he failed to produce them publicly even after rumors began circulating he had murdered them.

I don't know that Perkins wasn't Richard. It's possible, unlikely, he may have been some other related bastard or even a bastard of edward's but not the prince.

If the princes had died from disease there is no reason not to make it public. There is no reason not to make their illnesses public, to let people visit them and see they are ill and then they're dead. Thus, since this never happened, it isn't true. They did not die of natural causes but were murdered.

[Annara Snow]

Not several. Stillington did, and he himself had been arrested for suspected treason against Edward IV. Not only that, but the Church recognized his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville for 19 years, without even a peep from anyone. Richard Neville and George, Duke of Clarence, opposed the Woodvilles. When they rebelled, they said absolutely nothing about a supposed pre-contract. There is zero proof. None. Zilch.

Wait, so if George and Warwick didn't know about it, that means it was not true? How did you come to this ingenious conclusion, please tell?

Um, there is no "proof" because Henry VII made sure to destroy it, alongside a lot of other documents.

Richard definitely killed Edward V. There was still much support for the princes(them dying is what drove Yorkist support to Henry). He benefits directly from their death. Everyone knows that Titulus Regius is an absolute farce and the thinnest of thin pretexts to steal the crown. There isn't a shred of evidence to support a pre-contract. None. Zero. And even so, Parliament has no power to judge whether Edward IV's marriage was legitimate. That was for the Church to decide.

LOL "Everyone knows"? What a fantastic argument. That must be why Henry VII made sure to destroy all the copies of the document and make it illegal for anyone to own it.

And actually, no, the Church did not judge matters of succession, the Parliament did.

Why would he give them state funerals when he declared they were bastards?

OK then, why didn't he give them any funerals? You know, so people would know they were dead? You didn't answer that.

He doesn't admit then are dead because they everyone would know he killed them, that's why. He doesn't blame anyone else because there is no one else to legitimately blame, which is why the princes were disappeared and left a mystery. The point of killing them is they're dead, they can't claim the throne or have any children who will claim the throne. The same reason that later on Henry Tudor killed off the rest of the people with better claims to the throne.

They can't claim the throne either if they are kept locked up/kept under Richard's control. What's the danger there? That they could escape? Well then, does that mean that he didn't have complete control over their physical state and that people could get to them? Because if the answer is "yes", then that contradicts the argument that he was the only one who had them murdered.

Again, what's the point of killing them if people don't know they're dead? It doesn't deter their supporters, and impostors and pretenders could pop up in the next years, just as they did under Henry VII. Edward IV made sure people knew Henry VI was dead, Henry VII made sure people knew Richard III was dead, Henry VII never killed any of those people with a claim to the throne in secret, he made sure people knew they were dead. He kept Edward, Earl of Warwick locked up and produced him during the 1487 rebellion when the rebels claimed to have the real Earl of Warwick (Lambert Simnel), and only executed him - not killed him in secret - in 1499.

If people were going to suspect him of their murder anyway, why not at least make sure people knew they were dead? I've given you several options as to the smarter things he could have done if he wanted to get rid of them, you haven't shown me how what you think he did isn't the stupidest option of all.

I think that Richard III would have left specific orders on who could and couldn't have access to the princes, yes, very specific orders. Otherwise, if any random person could see them, they would have been rescued and not murdered.

Again... Buckingham was definitely not "any random person". You didn't answer that one, either. If, say, Buckingham came to the Tower and said "the king has told me, before he left London and went to his progress in the North, that his nephews are to be killed", what would you do? Ask for a written order? As if anyone would have expected it to exist. Call the second most powerful man in the realm a liar to his face?

It appears that burying them in the tower proved to be the best choice, because their bodies weren't found for centuries and still have not been positively identified, so it can't be true that taking them out would have been better.

So, the fact that there are no identified bodies are proof of murder? That's a new one. I used to think that the lack of body is normally why you can't even prove that a murder happened. Normally, the police and the prosector's office need a dead body to make a murder case at all.

Henry was at the absolute fringe of English politics. He'd spent most of his life in France and Brittany as a hostage. The most he could have ever hoped for was to be Earl of Richmond. But, yeah, let's ignore the guy with the most to gain from the murders, who had complete custody of the boys. Let's blame Margaret Beaufort. Hell, Henry didn't even have the strongest claim on the Beaufort side either. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, had a stronger claim. He had the bastard Beaufort blood and blood from Thomas of Woodstock, son of Edward III. Henry was at the back of the line of succession. There is no motive for her to have ordered the boys' death nor opportunity.

Yes, it's not like Henry got anything out of the disappearance of the princes and the rumors about them! It's not like he became a major contender to the throne in 1483 and announced his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (for which he would have to overturn Titulus Regius to make her legitimate again - which would also legitimize her brothers). It's not like Margaret Beaufort negotiated with Elizabeth Woodville in 1483 to arrange the betrothal at the same time when the rumors about the boys were starting to spread, and it's not like, at around the same time, she, her cousin Buckingham and John Morton organized a rebellion that's known as Buckingham's rebellion. And it's not like that rebellion was also the first attempted invasion by Henry Tudor, who was supposed to join his forces with Buckingham's.

Oh wait...

And mentioning Buckingham's claim to the throne clearly helps your case that there were no suspects other than Richard who had a reason to get rid of the boys. Clearly.

Henry VII and his supporters had the best motive. Henry did not have opportunity directly before 1485, but other people like his mother did... not directly, but through the above mentioned connection with Buckingham, who did have opportunity for sure.

He killed the Woodvilles with no trial. He conifscated their lands with no trial.

Actually, John Rous (hardly a Richard III supporter!) said that Northumberland served as their judge, which implies there was a trial.

Actually, I've never even seen Richard III by Shakespeare nor read the script. Warwick was disinherited and had no base of support. He was mentally handicapped by his imprisonment and his father was a traitor. He was no threat.

What are you talking about? You got your timeline and your kings confused there. Warwick was never imprisoned before Henry VII came to power, he had actually been living in Richard's and Anne's household. And there's no evidence whatsoever that he was mentally handicapped at the time. He was claimed to be mentally handicapped as a result of his long (1485-1499) imprisonment by Henry VII, when he was executed in 1499.

He was disinherited, yes. Just like Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. Sure, they could have been legitimized again. But attainders can be reversed, too.

Henry VII clearly disagreed with you about him being a threat, since he locked him up immediately and kept him locked up for 14 years. And he clearly was a threat to him, since the rebellion of 1487 was centered around a boy they claimed to be Warwick. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain also saw him as a threat, since they demanded his execution in 1499 so they would be sure their daughter was marrying the guy who would become the king of England.

[Annara Snow]

Process of elmination, motive and the timeline. He had control of the boys, he imprisoned them, he failed to produce them publicly even after rumors began circulating he had murdered them.

I don't know that Perkins wasn't Richard. It's possible, unlikely, he may have been some other related bastard or even a bastard of edward's but not the prince.

If the princes had died from disease there is no reason not to make it public. There is no reason not to make their illnesses public, to let people visit them and see they are ill and then they're dead. Thus, since this never happened, it isn't true. They did not die of natural causes but were murdered.

You don't even know they were murdered or died, rather than, say, were shipped off somewhere else. If that happened, there would have been good reasons not to produce them - if the whole point was for people not to know where they are.

OTOH, there is no reason not to make their deaths public if you murdered them, either. it would have been very easy to murder someone and pass it off as natural causes. (Naturally, you're not going to decapitate them or something like that if you intend to have them murdered and pass it off as natural causes.)

Even Henry VI was said to have died of "melancholy" as the official cause, and whatever people thought, Edward IV had no trouble at all because of dead Henry during the rest of his reign.

[Cas Stark]

You don't even know they were murdered or died, rather than, say, were shipped off somewhere else. If that happened, there would have been good reasons not to produce them - if the whole point was for people not to know where they are.

OTOH, there is no reason not to make their deaths public if you murdered them, either. it would have been very easy to murder someone and pass it off as natural causes. (Naturally, you're not going to decapitate them or something like that if you intend to have them murdered and pass it off as natural causes.)

Even Henry VI was said to have died of "melancholy" as the official cause, and whatever people thought, Edward IV had no trouble at all because of dead Henry during the rest of his reign.

Why would Richard III ship them off somewhere else? They were a direct threat to him. If they had been rescued in such a way, history would record it. Additionally, he didn't intend to die, so we don't know that he didn't have a plan on how to account for their deaths which he would have put into play after he defeated Henry Tudor. But, he lost instead. And the boys were already dead and burried and Henry Tudor not really interested in the details etiher as it all only called into focus how weak his claim was.

The weight of the evidence falls squarely on Richard III, people can discredit Mores piece all they want, but it fits the facts and it fits the location of the bodies found. And yes, I know they were supposed to be moved. Just like there more than one story of what happened to Richard III body, but one of those stories was TRUE, we know it was true because the body was where the story said it was, it wasn't thrown in the river, because it was found at the abby. in the same way, when we find bodies by the stairs where More's piece says they were placed, we should know it's true, and the bodies never got moved.

[Annara Snow]

Why would Richard III ship them off somewhere else? They were a direct threat to him. If they had been rescued in such a way, history would record it.

Really? Why? How? History hasn't "recorded" them being murdered, either. History is not omniscient and there's a whole lot of things it hasn't recorded.

Additionally, he didn't intend to die, so we don't know that he didn't have a plan on how to account for their deaths which he would have put into play after he defeated Henry Tudor.

Why would he wait two years to do that?

But, he lost instead. And the boys were already dead and burried and Henry Tudor not really interested in the details etiher as it all only called into focus how weak his claim was.

Oh, come on. Henry had trouble with Perkin Warbeck for years and, if he could have proven that the boys were dead, he definitely would have, so he would have no trouble with any more pretenders. If he had their bodies or any kind of proof they were murdered, he would have publicized that in no time, blamed Richard III (whether or not if was true) and sighed a sigh of relief.

(BTW, this is also why I don't believe the theory that the boys were still in the Tower in 1485 and that Henry VII had them murdered; if he had, I have no doubt that he would have produced their bodies as soon as they were in bad enough state to not look like fresh corpses, pinned it on Richard and made himself safe from any impostors.)

How would that have been bad for Henry? It doesn't make any sense. Everybody knew how weak his claim was, what would the boys' deaths have to do with that? He sure didn't mind imprisoning/ex Warwick or executing/imprisoning the De La Pole brothers, which also called attention to how weak his claim was, much more so.

The weight of the evidence falls squarely on Richard III, people can discredit Mores piece all they want, but it fits the facts and it fits the location of the bodies found. And yes, I know they were supposed to be moved. Just like there more than one story of what happened to Richard III body, but one of those stories was TRUE, we know it was true because the body was where the story said it was, it wasn't thrown in the river, because it was found at the abby. in the same way, when we find bodies by the stairs where More's piece says they were placed, we should know it's true, and the bodies never got moved.

More's story fits the facts? LOL More's story doesn't even get the basic facts right, like what it says about James Tyrell. You also think that there was a murderer called Black Will Slaughter? Even More reported it as a rumor.

There have been multiple child bodies found in the Tower. It hasn't even been established what era they are from, or what sex. If the queen allowed them to be exhumed and examined again, we would know at least if they were really Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, which we don't know.

But anyway, even if they were positively identified, I don't see why you think that would prove that Richard III had them murdered, let alone that some other details of More's improbable story was right? It would only prove that they were murdered in or around Tower some time in late 15th century (that's the most precise that the carbon dating could specify it at this point) and that someone More talked, probably John Morton, knew the location where they were buried.

[Ramsay Gimp]

For what little impact he had Renly will be remembered as an ambitious man who tried to take what he had no right to; primogeniture will likely outlive the series and Renly is an affront to that.

1. This is how most people in Westeros view Stannis. He will go down as the ambitious uncle who tried to usurp Robert's rightful heirs, and became a demon-worshipper to boot.

2. It's hilarious how readers get WAAAAY more outraged about Renly skipping the line of succession than people in the actual story do. No one treats it as some terrible "affront" except Stannis.

[Cas Stark]

Henry Tudor can't prove they're dead, he doesn't know what happened to them or where their bodies are, but he was obviously not interested in finding out either. He simply wishes to move on. Tudor Dynasty, yo.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I don't find More's story improbable, and I think the evidence is overwhelming that Richard III had the princes killed.

There is an outside chance that one of his own guys killed them, wrongly thinking this would curry favor with Richard--e.g. won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest--and did it on his own initiative, in which case, there is nothing Richard could have done then but hide it as no one would believe his own guy did it w/out authorization, and that truth can never be known.

But these ideas that Margaret Beauford was behind it are nonsensical.

[LuisDantas]

Stannis is just not that complex a character, IMO. He is a very straightforward villain, and has been since midway ACOK at the latest.