Quote:
Originally Posted by Wearever
[...] 2) He brings up the pre marriage contract between King Edward and Eleanor Butler. Thus claiming his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and her children have no right to the throne.
3) King Richard would then have no reason to kill the princes, they have no claim. So why would he kill them ?
|
The House of York itself came to the throne via slightly doubtful lines. The Woodville house was prolific and swept into powerful positions when Elizabeth married Edward IV, gaining widespread influence. So while the marriage claim was cast into doubt, these powerful people remained and both they and their new husbands, wives and extended families would not be happy about the idea that they have suddenly lost their blood links to the throne.
Put all that together and I think it becomes clear that the boys, while they remained alive, remained a threat. This is demonstrated quite clearly by the case or
Perkin Warbeck. Further evidence that only doubtful blood links are necessary to gain support for the throne also comes along in the form of Henry VII.
So if Richard was serious about keeping the throne, it is best that the boys should be gone. Best too, that they disappear while their legitimacy is in question. And simply disappearing means there are delays before the knowledge is widespread, and even then there is little of anything tangible for people to rally against. Or so goes my guesswork.
Edited to Add: It's worth noticing that the above can be true whether Richard is a villain seizing the throne from the rightful princes, or whether he is a dutiful man merely protecting the throne from illegitimate offspring.