Did Henry VI at one time { before the birth of his son??? Edward} considering making Margaret Beaufort his heir?? Is that why he married her to his half brother Edmund Tudor? That would be interesting also because if Henry VI had managed to keep his throne  from Edward IV would Henry VII have been his heir anyway after the death of his own son?

By the time Margaret married Edmund Tudor in 1455, Henry VI already had an heir (born in 1453.)  So I think the reason the King set up the marriage between his brother and Margaret was because it was a good match, not because he wanted Margaret be his heir. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark: Margaret Beaufort is a non-starter. 

 

Was it really that simple for Richard III - to have the princes declared illegitiment and think no more of it. Would he have not be concerned that as they grew up they might try to, claim? reclaim? the throne and that they might have supporters to assist them. I know that no one at that time was fond of having a child on the throne and the princes might not have been a threat while they were still children but as they got older they may well have become a threat to Richard III.  Could someone have gotten rid of the princes for Richard  thinking of that future threat??

Lady Helen:  I know that no one at that time was fond of having a child on the throne and the princes might not have been a threat while they were still children but as they got older they may well have become a threat to Richard III.  Could someone have gotten rid of the princes for Richard  thinking of that future threat??

 

 

 

Ok, I am getting what you are saying about who had the better motives for getting rid of the princes and it certainly looks like the Henry VII or his mother or someone loyal to them but I also don't think you can totally discount Richard III either. Yes he may have been an able ruler and had heirs and the people may well have been sick of the WOTR and it may have all worked out well. But even able rulers have enemies and there are always those who would love to dispose a king for various reasons and doing it all the princes name who have been a great excuse for those who had reason to oppose Richard. Some who love to have a minor on the throne to manipulate and use to their own purposes. Or he may have turned out not to be an able ruler - who knows?? I still think the princes could have been used against Richard at some point in time and it may well have suited his purposes to have them out of the way for nothing less then insurance. It may be a very minor motive compared to that of the Tudors but a motive nonetheless. Also as another issue -  did Richard III have any qualms about having his brothers children declared bastards? Did he feel any remorse or guilt about depriving his nephew of what would have been his birth right?

It all depends on which standpoint you take. My belief is that Richard seized the opportunity offered him by Bishop Stillingfleet's revelations in June 1483 without bothering to check their authenticity. He was an ambitious man and saw a chance to claim the throne. His subsequent murder of the Princes was for the reasons you've given; if they remained alive they were a threat either as a focal point for rebellion or as rivals themselves once they became old enough. He had to physically remove them from the picture. So, no he had no qualms whatsoever in declaring illegitimate.

 

 

 

Isn't it odd how we all look at the same evidence and come up with opposing conclusions. For me the evidence points solely to Richard. I can see the logic for naming Henry and/or his mother as the culprits, but the same logic also applies equally to Richard.

I guess that's the reason why it is hard to agree on who had the princes killed - there are a few people with enough motive to do it. I can't really decide who I think did it, that is why I love to listen to the arguments on both sides. I find it fascinating that Richard III has so many ardent defenders too!

Every 22 August the Richard III Society in GB place an obituary notice in the national newspapers, so he still has plenty of supporters more than 500 years after his death.