The question of who killed the Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York is one that has puzzled historians and commentators for centuries.  However, as will be demonstrated over this seven-post series, when the facts are objectively examined, there is little reason to cast the blame for the murder of the Princes in the Tower in the direction of anyone other than their infamous uncle, Richard III.

As an historian I am an amateur.  As a writer I hope I am a little bit more than that.  That’s why this blog exists.  I want to ensure that people interested in Royal history can access thoughtful, well written and digestible content through the internet – even if it’s at an amateur level.

What I write can never replace the reading of well-researched books.  This blog is a ‘dip your toe in the water’ experience; a ‘starter for 10’.

So why then am I now launching a seven part series on the question of whether Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower?  Surely a better thing to do would be to whip up an 800 word blog on the subject and sign post people elsewhere.

But there is just not enough accurate content to sign post people to online.  The internet is hugely unbalanced.

Since the third Richard’s bones were dug up two years ago, there has been a resurgence of interest in this subject.  The broadcast of the ‘White Queen’ in 2013 has also influenced people’s opinions in a way that has not been entirely helpful.

Newspapers, websites, broadcasters and bloggers have been keen to examine Richard’s life and as an understandable part of this, the questions as to whether he is truly guilty of the crimes historically laid at his door.

And of course, the primary crimes to which he stands accused of is whether, after the death of his brother Edward IV, he usurped the throne from his nephews, created a lie to bastardize them, and ultimately committed the heinous crime of child-murder.

But commentators – both online and off – have treated these questions with great caution.  We read that the fate of the Princes in the Tower is an ‘unsolvable mystery.’  We hear that there are numerous arguments for and against the last Plantagenet King’s involvement with it and that we can never really know either way.

This is now the narrative that floods the internet.  And it simply won’t do.

I want to propose, perhaps controversially but, I think fairly straightforwardly, that if we analyse the evidence in the same way that we do any other historical ‘mystery’, then there is no real reason to think anything other than that Richard III, in a bid to secure the throne he had illegally seized, ordered the death of his brother’s sons.

I am aware that absolute evidence doesn’t exist.  We cannot have absolute certainty; the Tower of London was not equipped with CCTV in 1483.  But nonetheless, when all the evidence is considered, the case against Richard is overwhelming.

It is for these reasons, and the fact that (to their credit) the Richard III society has masterfully presented the case for Richard’s innocence online, that I have decided to craft this series over seven blog posts.   First, I will suggest that he seized the throne illegally.  This does not, in and of itself, prove his guilt on the question or murder, but it does establish the context.  Then I will argue that the sheer circumstances of 1483 make life deeply uncomfortable for any would-be Ricardian, before arguing that alternative theories just don’t stack up.

I will devote the entirety of post five to examining the reliability of Thomas Moore’s ‘A History of King Richard III.’  This source is the most detailed near-contemporary account of Richard’s heinous crime and it is what later depictions of the villainous Richard are based on.  Quite frankly, if this can be established as broadly reliable, then it’s game over.

Having at this point effectively established that Richard is guilty as charged, I will – in the interest of balance – look at the couple of issues that have given me some pause as I have researched the topic, but also explain why none of these have been powerful enough to change my mind.  Finally, I will summarise my thinking in a conclusion.

As you will imagine, I have been as thorough as possible with my research.  I have three times read Alison Weir’s wonderful ‘Richard III and the Princes in the Tower’ which I recommend to anyone who retains any doubts as to the Prince’s fate.  I have scoured over the incredibly well presented content on the Richard III society website and Paul Murray Kendall’s well-written and sympathetic biography.  Crucially I have spent many hours studying the contemporary and near-contemporary accounts of Thomas Moore, Dominic Mancini and the second continuation of the Croyland Chronicle.

So as you can see, this has taken some time.  I hope you enjoy reading my findings as much as I have researching, pondering and eventually, putting ‘pen to paper’.