I’ve always known that a handful of people judge Margaret Beaufort guilty of the death of the Princes in the Tower. But until I published my series on Richard III – and incurred the wrath of the Ricardians – I had no idea just how widespread the theory was.
Absolutely no contemporary source links Margaret to the crime. An obscure 17th century biographer attempting to redeem Richard III links the deaths to a ‘certain Countess’ (presumably of Richmond) but offers nothing by way of evidence. I can’t shake the feeling that this view is currently so popular because of the ‘White Queen’ TV series in 2013.
It is, I believe, credible to suggest that Margaret had a motive. With the sons of Edward IV out the way, nothing would stand in the way of her son making an alliance with Elizabeth of York, uniting their claim to the throne and over throwing the tyrannical Richard. But a motive is not proof. It isn’t even close.
At the heart of this debate, in my opinion, is a correct understanding of how closely guarded the Princes were. Mancini tells us that Richard dismissed the boys’ servants and drew them closer into the tower. Only Richard’s loyalist men had access to them in the context of a high security prison.
How could Margaret possibly have gained access to the Princes, even if she had wanted to? The usual arguments go like this:
She was a wealthy woman who could have bribed the guards – She was a woman of some means. But what on earth could she have given Richard’s most trusted men that would trigger abandonment of their master. Killing princes, even ones deem illegitimate, is a pretty risking business – one you would answer for with your head. I just can’t believe that you would do it under the orders of anyone but the ruler of the day.
Her husband, Lord Stanley was a mover and shaker at court – Yes he was. But it does not equate that he would have access to the Princes. He was powerful; but he was not part of Richard’s inner circle.
I’m worried about the way some people are thinking about the Wars of the Roses at the moment. I consider myself a feminist and I agree that for too long, historians neglected the powerful impact that women have made throughout the ages. But we do no favours to anyone when we try and make the facts match our values. Women were not the key players in the 15th century. Perhaps they should have been. But they weren’t.
When engaging with people on this debate, I keep hearing people argue Margaret’s guilt with lines such as ‘she was a powerful woman in a man’s world.’ Perhaps she was; but it’s disturbing that people are almost suggesting that the murder of two young boys is somehow a display of power that we feminists should be proud of.
There’s much we don’t know about Lady Margaret Beaufort. But what we do know suggests she was a kind, generous, pious, if a little austere figure. Child murder was not something that was likely to appeal to her and even if it had, she could not have had the means.
Only one man had access to the Princes – only one man can reasonably be assumed to have murdered them.
What do you think geeks? Am I underestimating Margaret’s ambition? Have I been naive to the means or access she might have had? I want to know what YOU think!
Very sensible arguments. I agree with you. The person who had the guardianship of the kings person was responsible for their health and safety and it happened on his watch.
Mancini was an Italian who did not speak English and relied on translators. Also, I may be wrong, but he was writing 20 years after the event. Therefore what he says is not only hearsay but also possible misinterpretation and misunderstandings. Also he was writing in Tudor times. I am not a’ Ricardian’ as you most dismissively say, just someone interested in the truth. Frankly, I think that at least one of the Princes could have died of natural causes. There are contemporary reports that one was sickly and suffered from a bone disorder, perhaps osteo arthritis or rheumatism.. I think that it would be very interesting to discover when Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville began colluding to have Henry marry the daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth.Woodville.
To have done so must have meant that Elizabeth either knew that the Princes were dead and was trying to save her bacon, or was ready to bypass them, knowing what their fate would be. Would be interested in your comments on this.
While no contemporary source links Margaret to the crime, could it also be argued that history is written by the victors and as a result, under the rule of Henry VII and his heirs, we won’t find any contemporary sources linking her. To make any accusations against the king’s mother wouldn’t have been met with kindness to say the least. So, while we lack contemporary evidence I don’t thinks it’s entirely out of the realm of possibility. Unlikely yes…impossible…no.
I agree with you, there is no way she could have killed them. Richard III was the only one who could give the order to kill them. I am not entirely sure if he did give the order or if his men just took it upon themselves to kill the princes. We will probably never know.
I agree with you, there is no way she could have killed them. Richard III was the only one who could give the order to kill them. I am not entirely sure if he did give the order or if his men just took it upon themselves to kill the princes. We will probably never know but it is fun to speculate.
Margaret killed them? Likely not, but her wishes would have been known to the Stanleys, that Henry Tudor was “ordained by God” through Margaret’s religious fervor. Never doubt the fervor of a religious zealot to attempt to divine the “will of God.”
She killed him no doubt. She could justify her actions to the end.
“Women were not the key players in the 15th century. Perhaps they should have been. But they weren’t.” Yes women were key players and they always will be.
Sadly, women had very little power in the 15th century. Any they did have was usually given to them by men.
I agree that it was Richard the third that killed the two princes. I’m sure that we all have looked at this from every possible angle. But as closely guarded as these two children were there is no way it could have been anyone else. He got what he deserved at the battle of Bosworth
Richard would not have order that the princes should die as he was the one to gain by their death and he would be the obvious one to be blamed. I certainly think it was Margaret Beaufort or someone who wanted to help her. Could have been her husband as he certainly got something out of Henry 7 when he became king
I DISAGREE 100% on your argument that Margaret Beaufort did not murder the Princes in the tower.
YES; Margaret Beaufort IS 100% GUILTY OF MURDERING EDWARD V. WHAT RESEARCHERS HAVE NOT STATED IS DURING THOSE TIMES CHURCHES WERE 100% CORRUPT! ANYTHING COULD BE BOUGHT INCLUDING MURDER! Margaret Beaufort was a very wealthy woman who COULD BUY ANYTHING INCLUDING THE MURDER OF A YOUNG BOY PRINCE!
ANOTHER THING NOT MENTIONED IS MARGARET BEAUFORT NOR ANY DESCENDANT of her family could NOT sit upon the throne of England for Richard II signed into law that the BASTARD children of John Guant WERE legitimized HOWEVER NONE COULD NOT EVER HAVE THEIR BACKSIDES ON THE THRONE OF ENGLAND!
Margaret Beaufort was VERY POWER HUNGRY. Moment Henry Vll was born Margaret Beaufort was trying to put her son on the throne of England! Margaret ALSO was married to what is called a turncoat WHO KNEW AND TAUGHT MARGARET BEAUFORT WHAT TO DO. Margaret Beaufort HAD the HUGEST SPY RING EVER during those times. She WANTED EVERY YORK out of the way thus making sure there would be NO ONE for the throne EXCEPT FOR THE USURPER HENRY VII. Margaret Beaufort ALSO took the wardship of the Warwick children; Earl Edward Warwick and Duchess Margaret Warwick; WHICH MEANT SHE, MARGARET BEAUFORT HAD EVERY CENT EVERY SINGLE PENNY the Warwick children had as well as almost ALL THE LANDS OWNED BY WARWICK, except for those given to the Stanley brothers for their SO CALLED “LOYALTY” to Henry VII.
EVEN HENRY VII KNEW HIS MOTHER WAS THE ULTIMATE LEADER OF THE MURDER OF PRINCE EDWARD V.
More and more Historians are taking their eyes from Richard lll and are looking at Margaret Beaufort in the disappearance and murder of Edward V. I am not putting murder of Prince Richard of York under Margaret Beaufort. Reason? I personally BELIEVE THAT Perkin Warbecke was indeed Prince Richard IV.
Margaret Beaufort WAS ALSO RELATED TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM WHOM HAD 100% COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE TOWER IN WHICH PRINCE EDWARD V & THE CHANGLING WERE KEPT AT.
I do NOT BELIEVE THAT RICHARD III murdered his nephew at all. There was a promise AND a commitment made in front of ALL OF KING EDWARD IV’s COUNCIL. Most of the councilmen ALSO BECAME RICHARD III COUNCILMEN. Not only that Richard III LOVED HIS BROTHER KING EDWARD IV AS WELL AS HIS NEPHEWS; so why would he murder boys HE LOVED!
People think that Margaret Beaufort was SO PIOUS AND RELIGIOUS THAT she couldn’t have done murder. WRONG! Perfect guise. Margaret Beaufort was NOT PIOUSED. Margaret Beaufort was found to be involved with EVERY PLOT pertaining to murdering Edward V and other plots pertaining to getting her son on the throne of England.
Let’s ALSO TALK ABOUT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO MARGARET BEAUFORT AND THE MURDER OF EDWARD V WHICH ARE NOT TO BE SEEN BY ANYONE AT ALL. Why is that? Why are there documents pertaining to Margaret Beaufort and the murder of Prince Edward V which I AS A HISTORIAN CANNOT EVEN LOOK AT! Why is that! Due to fact it WOULD PROVE MARGARET BEAUFORT DID PUT TOGETHER THE PLOT AS WELL AS CARRYING OUT THE MURDER OF PRINCE EDWARD V.
You did NOT list nor state obvious reasons as to why she couldn’t have murdered the “Princes”; HOWEVER; I DID!
Under Henry VII; a great many people were executed due to Margaret Beaufort and her hatred of the York’s.
Even her relationship with Queen Elizabeth of York was a very rocky one at that.
Margaret Beaufort ACTED LIKE SHE AND NOT QUEEN ELIZABETH OF YORK WAS QUEEN. As I have stated earlier Margaret Beaufort WAS VERY POWER HUNGRY.
Margaret Beaufort even had written a book on the confinement of Queen Elizabeth of York; when it was time for her to give birth. In this book which was adopted to be used ON other Queen’s dictated that their husband’s could NOT VISIT them for the required six weeks of confinement of giving birth and after giving birth. NO MALE COULD NOT EVER LOOK UPON ANY QUEEN UNTIL THEY WERE CHURCHED.
Margaret Beaufort ALSO INVENTED A TITLE FOR HERSELF; “MY LADY THE KING’S MOTHER”; NO OTHER MOTHER OF ANY KING INVENTED A TITLE? Margaret Beaufort ALSO WALKED TWO STEPS AND TO RIGHT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH OF YORK; AS WELL AS SHE HAD A TRAIN OF CLOTH WHICH ONLY THE QUEEN HERSELF WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE.
Once Henry VII WON the Battle of Bosworth and Henry VII came to the castle; Margaret Beaufort TOOK THE QUEEN’S ROOMS FOR HERSELF; which Queen Elizabeth of York RIGHTFULLY WAS TO HAVE. Margaret Beaufort KEPT THOSE ROOMS ALL DURING THE REIGN OF HENRY VII.
I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK; FOR I AM A HISTORIAN WITH EMPHASIS ON THE TUDORS AND YORKS; AS WELL AS BATTLE OF CULLODEN. I DO PLAN TO PUBLISH A BOOK with my research on Margaret Beaufort and her association with the murder of Prince Edward V.
Thanks for your thoughts Lyn. It’s worth checking out how Cecily Neville (Edward IV and Richard III’s mother styled herself). It was fairly similar to Margaret.
Margaret was portrayed in such a bad light throughout the White queen and White princess…is this a true reflection or just a theory? It makes sense she could do such things but is there any truth in it? Richard was made out to be a pawn in a game so how accurate is this? Who knows.
In the white queen / white princess they made a creative decision to portray Margaret as a villain. I understand why you have to make someone the villain in fiction. However, historical evidence does not suggest Margaret was a sinister character in any way.
She couldn’t really have killed the princes. Richard had them in a high security prison.
Thanks so much for engaging 🙂
While I agree there is no evidence either way and I think something we have to keep in mind is that history is written by the victotlrs. In this case Margaret and the tudors
Although the main argument that Margaret is innocent is that she couldn’t have had access to the princes. We can conclude that without relying on any Tudor-era sources.
I DISAGREE 100% on your argument that Margaret Beaufort did not murder the Princes in the tower.
YES; Margaret Beaufort IS 100% GUILTY OF MURDERING EDWARD V. WHAT RESEARCHERS HAVE NOT STATED IS DURING THOSE TIMES CHURCHES WERE 100% CORRUPT! ANYTHING COULD BE BOUGHT INCLUDING MURDER! Margaret Beaufort was a very wealthy woman who COULD BUY ANYTHING INCLUDING THE MURDER OF A YOUNG BOY PRINCE!
ANOTHER THING NOT MENTIONED IS MARGARET BEAUFORT NOR ANY DESCENDANT of her family could NOT sit upon the throne of England for Richard II signed into law that the BASTARD children of John Guant WERE legitimized HOWEVER NONE COULD NOT EVER HAVE THEIR BACKSIDES ON THE THRONE OF ENGLAND!
Margaret Beaufort was VERY POWER HUNGRY. Moment Henry Vll was born Margaret Beaufort was trying to put her son on the throne of England! Margaret ALSO was married to what is called a turncoat WHO KNEW AND TAUGHT MARGARET BEAUFORT WHAT TO DO. Margaret Beaufort HAD the HUGEST SPY RING EVER during those times. She WANTED EVERY YORK out of the way thus making sure there would be NO ONE for the throne EXCEPT FOR THE USURPER HENRY VII. Margaret Beaufort ALSO took the wardship of the Warwick children; Earl Edward Warwick and Duchess Margaret Warwick; WHICH MEANT SHE, MARGARET BEAUFORT HAD EVERY CENT EVERY SINGLE PENNY the Warwick children had as well as almost ALL THE LANDS OWNED BY WARWICK, except for those given to the Stanley brothers for their SO CALLED “LOYALTY” to Henry VII.
EVEN HENRY VII KNEW HIS MOTHER WAS THE ULTIMATE LEADER OF THE MURDER OF PRINCE EDWARD V.
More and more Historians are taking their eyes from Richard lll and are looking at Margaret Beaufort in the disappearance and murder of Edward V. I am not putting murder of Prince Richard of York under Margaret Beaufort. Reason? I personally BELIEVE THAT Perkin Warbecke was indeed Prince Richard IV.
Margaret Beaufort WAS ALSO RELATED TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM WHOM HAD 100% COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE TOWER IN WHICH PRINCE EDWARD V & THE CHANGLING WERE KEPT AT.
I do NOT BELIEVE THAT RICHARD III murdered his nephew at all. There was a promise AND a commitment made in front of ALL OF KING EDWARD IV’s COUNCIL. Most of the councilmen ALSO BECAME RICHARD III COUNCILMEN. Not only that Richard III LOVED HIS BROTHER KING EDWARD IV AS WELL AS HIS NEPHEWS; so why would he murder boys HE LOVED!
People think that Margaret Beaufort was SO PIOUS AND RELIGIOUS THAT she couldn’t have done murder. WRONG! Perfect guise. Margaret Beaufort was NOT PIOUSED. Margaret Beaufort was found to be involved with EVERY PLOT pertaining to murdering Edward V and other plots pertaining to getting her son on the throne of England.
Let’s ALSO TALK ABOUT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO MARGARET BEAUFORT AND THE MURDER OF EDWARD V WHICH ARE NOT TO BE SEEN BY ANYONE AT ALL. Why is that? Why are there documents pertaining to Margaret Beaufort and the murder of Prince Edward V which I AS A HISTORIAN CANNOT EVEN LOOK AT! Why is that! Due to fact it WOULD PROVE MARGARET BEAUFORT DID NOTHING INDEED HAVE PUT TOGETHER THE PLOT AS WELL AS CARRYING OUT THE MURDER OF PRINCE EDWARD V.
You did NOT list nor state obvious reasons as to why she couldn’t have murdered the “Princes”; HOWEVER; I DID!
Under Henry VII; a great many people were executed due to Margaret Beaufort and her hatred of the York’s.
Even her relationship with Queen Elizabeth of York was a very rocky one at that.
Margaret Beaufort ACTED LIKE SHE AND NOT QUEEN ELIZABETH OF YORK WAS QUEEN. As I have stated earlier Margaret Beaufort WAS VERY POWER HUNGRY.
Margaret Beaufort even had written a book on the confinement of Queen Elizabeth of York; when it was time for her to give birth. In this book which was adopted to be used ON other Queen’s dictated that their husband’s could NOT VISIT them for the required six weeks of confinement of giving birth and after giving birth. NO MALE COULD NOT EVER LOOK UPON ANY QUEEN UNTIL THEY WERE CHURCHED.
Margaret Beaufort ALSO INVENTED A TITLE FOR HERSELF; “MY LADY THE KING’S MOTHER”; NO OTHER MOTHER OF ANY KING INVENTED A TITLE? Margaret Beaufort ALSO WALKED TWO STEPS AND TO RIGHT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH OF YORK; AS WELL AS SHE HAD A TRAIN OF CLOTH WHICH ONLY THE QUEEN HERSELF WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE.
Once Henry VII WON the Battle of Bosworth and Henry VII came to the castle; Margaret Beaufort TOOK THE QUEEN’S ROOMS FOR HERSELF; which Queen Elizabeth of York RIGHTFULLY WAS TO HAVE. Margaret Beaufort KEPT THOSE ROOMS ALL DURING THE REIGN OF HENRY VII.
I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK; FOR I AM A HISTORIAN WITH EMPHASIS ON THE TUDORS AND YORKS; AS WELL AS BATTLE OF CULLODEN. I DO PLAN TO PUBLISH A BOOK with my research on Margaret Beaufort and her association with the murder of Prince Edward V.
well the thing is that Margaret and Elizabeth of York did in fact have a good relationship and when Elizabeth first arrived in London after the battle of Bosworth and was not crowed queen yet Margaret gave Elizabeth her rooms to live in,-. she never acted like she was the queen and did not have as much influence as you assume.
Yes she was more respected than Elizabeth but Elizabeth didn’t really have a problem with it and the honors were given to her by her son.
another thing is that if there was even a hint that Margaret had killed the princes Elizabeth Woodville wouldn’t have made an alliance with her. they were fairly good friends and even greeted guests together. it is very insulting of you to say that a very pious woman who had spent most of her life trying to keep her son alive in a divided country and renovating churches was not pious and in fact a murderer. obviously you have seen the show and are taking points from there please look at the sources from that time as we can only rely on them and not HISTORIC FICTION.