The Shadow of Succession: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Deaths of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury
The question "Who ordered Robert's bastards killed?" is a historical riddle that has captivated imaginations for centuries. While the name "Robert" might not immediately ring a bell in the context of these tragic deaths, the individuals involved are central figures in English history: **Edward V**, the uncrowned king, and his younger brother, **Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York**. Their story, often referred to as the "Princes in the Tower," is one of mystery, political intrigue, and a desperate struggle for power.
The Disappearance of the Princes
In 1483, the young **King Edward V** ascended to the throne of England following the death of his father, King Edward IV. However, his reign was destined to be short-lived. Just weeks after his father's death, Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, were sent to the Tower of London for their "protection" and to await Edward's coronation. This was a common practice for young heirs at the time. However, as the coronation date approached, the boys vanished. They were never seen alive again.
The subsequent usurpation of the throne by their uncle, **Richard, Duke of Gloucester**, who was then crowned King Richard III, fueled suspicion. Gloucester, as Lord Protector, had the most immediate access to the princes and the most to gain from their demise.
The Accusations Against Richard III
The primary suspect for the murder of the "Princes in the Tower" has historically been **Richard III**. Several pieces of evidence and circumstantial factors point towards his involvement:
- The Timing: The princes disappeared shortly after Richard became Lord Protector and then King. This timing is highly suggestive.
- The Beneficiary: Richard III was the direct beneficiary of their deaths. With the princes out of the picture, his claim to the throne was significantly strengthened, eliminating any legitimate male heirs from his brother's line.
- Contemporary Accounts: While often biased, some contemporary chronicles and later historical accounts alluded to Richard's responsibility. For instance, Sir Thomas More, writing decades later but relying on earlier sources, strongly implied Richard's guilt.
- Lack of Public Appearance: After being lodged in the Tower, the princes were never seen publicly again. If they had been alive and held by another claimant, their existence would likely have been used as a political tool.
Richard III himself never publicly admitted to ordering their deaths, and he consistently denied any wrongdoing concerning his nephews. However, his silence and the political climate of the time made it difficult to definitively prove or disprove his involvement.
The "Robert" Connection: A Misdirection?
It's important to address the specific phrasing of the question: "Who ordered Robert's bastards killed." In the context of the Princes in the Tower, there is no prominent historical figure named "Robert" who would be ordering the deaths of *his* "bastards." This suggests a potential misunderstanding or a conflation of historical narratives. The term "bastard" was also often used in a more political sense to question the legitimacy of a ruler or their children.
The children of Edward IV were considered legitimate heirs. Their legitimacy was, however, controversially challenged by Richard III's supporters, who declared Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid, thereby making their children illegitimate. This declaration was a crucial step in Richard III's claim to the throne. So, while they were not "bastards" in the traditional sense, their legitimacy was attacked to pave the way for Richard's coronation.
Therefore, the question likely refers to the individuals whose legitimacy was questioned, and who were effectively treated as "bastards" by those seeking to usurp their rightful positions. In this context, the "killer" or the one who "ordered" their disappearance is most strongly suspected to be their uncle, Richard III.
Other Theories and Suspects
While Richard III remains the most popular suspect, other theories have been proposed over the centuries:
- Henry Tudor (later Henry VII): Some historians suggest that Henry Tudor, who eventually defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field and became king, might have had the princes killed to remove potential rivals from the succession once he had claimed the throne. However, this theory lacks strong evidence, and Tudor benefited from the *memory* of the murdered princes as a propaganda tool against Richard.
- The Duke of Buckingham: Thomas Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, was a close ally of Richard III. Some speculate he might have acted on his own or on Richard's orders. However, Buckingham himself later rebelled against Richard and was executed, making him an unlikely candidate to have acted independently and then been executed by Richard.
The Unresolved Mystery
Despite extensive research and archaeological findings (such as the discovery of two small skeletons in the Tower of London in 1674, believed to be the princes), the exact fate and the definitive order for their deaths remain officially unconfirmed. The mystery surrounding the Princes in the Tower continues to be a subject of debate among historians, contributing to the enduring allure of this dark chapter in English royal history.
The absence of a confession, the destruction of records, and the subsequent turmoil of the Wars of the Roses have all conspired to keep the truth buried, leaving us to ponder the true culprit behind the tragic demise of Edward V and his brother.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: How did Richard III become king if Edward V was already crowned?
Edward V was never officially crowned. He was in the Tower of London awaiting his coronation when he and his brother disappeared. Richard, as Lord Protector, seized power, declared Edward V illegitimate, and then had himself crowned King Richard III.
Q2: Why were the princes sent to the Tower of London in the first place?
They were sent to the Tower for their safety and to await Edward V's coronation. It was a customary practice for royal heirs to be housed in the Tower for protection and to prepare for their future roles.
Q3: What evidence do we have that the skeletons found were the princes?
In 1674, workmen digging in the Tower of London unearthed a wooden chest containing the remains of two children. These were later placed in Westminster Abbey. While the exact age and identities were not definitively proven at the time, the location and the prevailing belief that the princes were murdered in the Tower led to widespread acceptance of them being the royal brothers. Modern DNA analysis, if possible with the remains, could potentially provide further confirmation.
Q4: Could the princes have escaped and lived elsewhere?
While it's a popular theory in fiction, there is no historical evidence to suggest they escaped. Their disappearance was sudden and complete, and if they had survived, it's highly probable their existence would have been revealed by someone to further political ends.
