A Comparison Between Richard III And Henry VII

Every cold case has a suspect or perpetrator who is thought to have committed the crime. Even a crime that happened 500 yeas ago has several suspects in mind. The murder and disappearance of the two princes in the tower, Edward V and Prince Richard, Duke of York, is a case that has never been solved. The two main suspects are Richard III and Henry VII. Although there is not enough evidence to convict either Richard III or Henry VII, based on the evidence I think Richard III murdered his nephews, Edward V and Prince Richard. Richard III is guilty because he had several opportunities to murder the two princes, Tyrell’s confession, Henry VII’s Bill of Attainder, and the pre-contract.
As the uncle of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, Richard

III had several opportunities to murder the two princes. His opportunities are when he took control over Edward V and removed Prince Richard from sanctuary. Edward V was in Wales when his father Edward IV died was traveling to London with Lord Rivers and Lord Richard Gray. After he heard of the death of Edward IV, Richard III was quick to track down Edward V and take control over him. Besides wanting to make sure the Woodvilles had no power, the reason Richard III intercepted Edward V on his way to London was because he wanted the young king in his possession and for power. He wanted power and by being named Protector it gave him legal control over Edward V. He took possession of Edward V because by having him under his control, it was easier for Richard III to murder him.
Once he had Edward V under his control all he had to do was get Prince Richard in his possession so he could murder them and become king. In Thomas More’s words, “he had but half his prey in his hand; well witting that if he disposed the one brother, all the realm would fall to the other if he remained in sanctuary, or should haply be shortly conveyed to his further liberty”. When Elizabeth Woodville heard about Richard III arresting Lord Rivers and Lord Richard, she took Prince Richard and fled to sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. In order to become king Richard III knew he had to remove Prince Richard from sanctuary to gain control over his nephews. He convinced the council that Prince Richard should be removed from sanctuary because it is no place for a child and so he can be with his brother, Edward V. The council agreed with him and he had the sanctuary surrounded by troops to force Elizabeth Woodville to release Prince Richard, if they could not convince her to release him. Richard claimed he wanted Prince Richard out of sanctuary so he could be with his brother Edward V, but by removing Prince Richard from sanctuary, Richard III had control over both of the princes. Once he had control over the two princes, Richard could kill they anytime he wanted, giving him plenty of opportunities to murder his nephews.
Once Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were safely in the Tower of London, they were slowly seen less and less until they disappeared completely.

Richard III asked Sir Robert Brackenbury to murder the boys and with his refusal, he turned to Sir James Tyrell to complete the task. Richard sent a letter ordering Brackenbury to give Tyrell the keys to the tower for a night and had Tyrell devise a plan to murder the two princes. Tyrell had Miles Forest and John Dighton smother the two princes with pillows in their bedchamber. After they were murdered, Tyrell had them buried at the foot of the stairs. The account of the events mentioned above came from Tyrell’s confession before he was executed for treason against Henry VII. Most people will argue Tyrell’s confession never happened and More made it up, but one must have existed because More says it was his main source. The details of his account are considered authentic because they occur nowhere else. Also the details used and because More says he used it as a source implies he has seen it and even though no official record survives today, it does not mean that one did not exist at all. The fact that More used Tyrell’s confession is a testament to the fact Richard III murdered his nephews because Tyrell said he was hired by Richard and not Henry VII to murder the two princes and what reason would he have for lying? The confession was not coerced out of Tyrell and if it were why would he include John Dighton? It was also not fabricated by Henry VII because otherwise he would have used it as propaganda, which would have been to his advantage. Tyrell’s confession is significant evidence for the case against Richard III because it states how Richard had the two princes murdered, and is pretty important evidence in the case as a whole. If Richard III did not have Tyrell murder Edward V and Prince Richard, then why would Richard order Brackenbury to give Tyrell the keys to the tower for one

night?
One of the main points for the Richard III Society or the people who think Richard III is innocent, is that Henry VII never accused Richard III of the murder in his Bill of Attainder. However depending on the meaning of commas and punctuation in 1485, Henry’s Bill of Attainder could have accused Richard of the murder of the two princes. This bill accuses Richard III of one specific crime, “Perjuries, Treasons, Homicides and [Murders], in shedding of Infants blood.” If the sentence structure refers to infants blood as the same act as perjuries, treasons, homicides and murders, then because treason requires an act against the crown, by charging Richard with a treasonous crime that shed infants blood, it is likely referencing the two princes. However if the sentence structure refers to the infants blood as only modifying murder and not perjuries, treasons, and homicides then it accuses Richard of murdering infants but there is no record of Richard killing any other young children. If Richard did not kill his nephews than who is the infants blood referring to? If it turns out that Henry VII did in fact accuse Richard III of killing the two princes in his Bill of Attainder then the case for Richard III being innocent would have no standing. This is because one of their main points is that Henry never accused Richard of killing his nephews of murder. But if Henry did accuse Richard of the murder, then the Ricardians have no case because who can argue against a Bill of Attainder that states Richard III murdered Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. However the Ricardians could argue that Henry never directly accused Richard of killing Edward V and Prince Richard because he only references it to the shedding of infants blood. Why Henry VII did not just say Richard III murdered his nephews is probably because his guilt was widely known, so there would have been no reason to be more specific in the bill.
Before Richard III could murder his nephews, he had to have a legitimate reason to take the throne and to make it less suspicious about having the boys be seen less and less. He came up with an idea to declare the boys and all the children of his brother Edward IV as illegitimate. He based his claim on Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage being unlawful. Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage was illegal because Edward IV was already married, when he entered into a pre-contract with Elizabeth. Before he married Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler. However the two princes are not illegitimate even with their parent’s marriage being illegal because “the pre-contract might bastardize the first child born to Elizabeth and Edward, it would not affect the boys Edward V and Richard, since they were born after the death of Lady Eleanor in 1468.” Elizabeth and Edward IV’s marriage was considered invalid not only because he was already married but also because it was a clandestine marriage. However “the initially secret nature of the marriage with Elizabeth…was in fact legally irrelevant…clandestine unions were valid and binding,” this means that Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage was perfectly valid because secret marriage were seen as binding Another reason why their marriage was perfectly valid is because “the long public recognition of the validity of the kings marriage with Elizabeth…rendered the claim legally suspect if not valid. It was raised after their death and was thus made too late to be considered.” The boys were legitimate because the accusation against the validity of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage was raised long after Eleanor Butler died and when Edward and Elizabeth first got married, making the claim feeble. The boys were legitimately the heirs to the throne because they were born after Eleanor Butler died, clandestine marriages were valid, and their parent’s marriage was recognized as valid for a long period of time. With the boys being legitimate, Richard III was not the actual heir to the throne meaning he purposely came up this plan to declare them illegitimate in order to usurp the throne. All Richard III wanted was to become king and he did not care what means he had to take in order to ensure the throne was his.
Based on the evidence mentioned above, Richard III is guilty of the murder of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. Richard III had several opportunities to murder his nephews, like when he intercepted Edward V on his way to London and when he removed Richard from sanctuary. Once he had both of them in his possession, he could murder them anytime he wanted. Another reason why Richard is guilty is because Tyrell’s confession of the account of the murder claimed Richard as the murderer. This is because Tyrell states that Richard III hired him to kill the two princes. Also in Henry VII’s Bill of Attainder, he did accuse Richard III of the murder of the two princes in the tower with the statement, shedding of infants blood. Also, when Richard III declared the two princes illegitimate, it was his plan to usurp the throne because the boys were in fact legitimate and the heirs to the throne. In my opinion, this cold case has been concluded and Richard III is guilty of the disappearance and murder of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.