Early in my research, I started to form the view that Richard III was responsible for the death of his nephews.  However, during my journey I stumbled across a couple of road blocks that gave me more than a little pause for thought.

Anyone reading this series will have noticed that I’ve taken a rather direct approach.  Effectively, I’ve started with my conclusion and then worked backwards to reason it.  But when I started researching, I genuinely did so with an open mind.

The weight of evidence quickly pointed sharply to Richard’s guilt.  But that’s not to say that along the journey I didn’t come across anything that gave me pause.  In the interest of balance I wanted to draw readers’ attention to two major questions I encountered; and explain why they ultimately failed to change my mind.

Croyland’s silence on the fate of the Princes

The second continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, written in 1486, almost certainly by Richard’s chancellor, John Russel, Bishop of Lincoln gives essential detail on the events surrounding the disappearance of the Princes.  But despite a reference to a rumour of the boys being viciously slaughtered (with no accusation as to who might be behind the crime) he is silent on their ultimate fate.

This bothered me.  Croyland was no fan of Richard.  He is happy to condemn him for sensuality, tyranny and other crimes.  If he thought him guilty of killing his nephews, wouldn’t he have mentioned it?  If this man, so close to the heart of Richard’s government didn’t feel he could take that step, who am I, writing over 500 years later to attempt to do so?

But actually there are two easy and believable explanations for Croyland’s reluctance; one resting on the fact that he knew too much, the other that he knew too little.

The chronicler was not writing an account that he was intending to present to the King or a member of his government.  This is one of the reasons we can be confident he would have felt no need to invent anything for political purposes.  But he was a realist that was aware his account could be viewed by sensitive eyes.  As such, he approached everything with caution – he may also have been cautious by nature.

As such, there is a great subtlety to much of his work.  He insinuates that Edward IV had been responsible for an act of great tyranny in the murder of Henry VI – but he stops short of saying so.  Why?  Probably because Edward’s daughter was the newly crowned Queen Consort of England.

Could it be that he knew exactly what had happened to the Princes but was worried about incriminating himself?  As I’ve just said, the boys’ sister was now Queen of England.  By making it clear that he knew of events at the time could have been to incur her wrath for not doing enough to stop it.

But personally, I prefer another theory.  That Croyland simply didn’t know.  This should come as little surprise to us.  The murder of Edward V and his little brother was carefully calculated and one of the biggest cover-ups in history.  Thomas More details that the chain of events was managed carefully by Richard’s henchmen.  Even the most senior members of government were kept at arm’s length.  Croyland may have had his suspicions – but he was not the kind of historian or politician that made accusations when he didn’t have all the facts.

The behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York

When it became obvious to Queen Elizabeth Woodville, mother of the Princes, that her brother in law was making a play for power, she retreated to sanctuary with her remaining family.  Once she believed the Princes dead, she even consented to the engagement of her eldest daughter Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor, the distant Lancastrian claimant.  In short, she did everything she could to disrupt Richard’s reign.

But after Tudor’s initial failure to invade England and topple Richard, something (on the face of it) strange happened.  She and her daughters left sanctuary with the pledge of Richard’s protection.  She allowed her eldest daughter into his service.  She accepted money from him.  She may even have considered allowing him to marry Elizabeth of York;  a disturbing act of incest that would have allowed him to solidify his claim on the throne (Elizabeth of York was seen by many as the true heir after the death of her brothers).

Many Ricardians jump on this.  They claim – not unreasonably – that Elizabeth Woodville would never have aligned herself with a man responsible for the death of her children.  She must, they argue, have had some proof of Richard’s innocence.

It’s a powerful theory.  But it’s flawed.  And its flaws are so big, they render it useless.

The truth is, whatever you think about the fate of the Princes, Elizabeth already knew that Richard was responsible for the death of her kin.  In 1483 he had her son Richard Grey and her brother Anthony Rivers executed illegally.  If she was able to look past these great crimes against her family, why should the death of her other sons be any different?

How then should we interpret Elizabeth’s controversial actions?  Firstly, we must look at the sheer realities of her circumstances.  Could she really hide out in sanctuary forever?  Whatever her personal grief, she had to be practical.  After all she needed to live and had to invest her hopes in the futures of the children that she still had living.

And, more contentiously, but I think accurately, we need to be honest about the nature of the Woodville Queen’s personality.  Her portrayal in the BBC’s ‘White Queen ‘ has led many to see her solely as a beautiful, tragic-heroine.  She was certainly beautiful and indeed, encountered more than her fair share of tragedy.  But she was also a bitterly ambitious woman that would stop at little for the advancement of her family and indeed herself.  After her fall from power, her overwhelming priority would have been for the restoration of herself and her children to something resembling Royal status.  If that meant marrying her daughter to her murderous uncle, then so be it.  As she had probably learnt from her scheming parents, power rarely had too high a price.

But what about her daughter, Elizabeth of York?  Was she a willing accomplice or an innocent victim?  To obey the orders of her mother seems to be in keeping with the submissive personality she would demonstrate later in her life.  Also, it might be that Richard was able to convince her of his innocence.  But the fact he was able to persuade or trick a teenage girl, particularly of something that she probably wanted to hear, shouldn’t have a major impact on our thinking.

There is nothing in the behavior of either Elizabeth that gives us cause to assume the innocence of Richard III.

There have been other things that have caused me to question my conclusions; but rarely for longer than a few minutes.  So, having aired a few of the questions that I have encountered on the twists and turns of the journey, it is finally time to head to my last post, where I summarise my conclusions.

But before we do…over to you geeks?  Have I been a bit harsh on Elizabeth Woodville?  Have I misunderstood Croyland?  Are there other issues that should have made me think again?  What do YOU think?