Yes, yes and…Yes.

I totally agree.

You haven’t been paying attention, have you Nicole?

Say what you want about Richard III but he *never* flooded England with Pakis. That alone makes him a better monarch than the Windsors.

Sour grapes, much?

Richard is fascinating because he had the guts to overcome disability and become a superb fighter, was a reliable administrator, interested in scholarship, devoted to great choral music, contributed to King's College Chapel and above all, was deeply concerned with justice for all. The presumption of innocence, on which ALL Western law is based, was brought in by Richard lll. Oh, and he was a faithful husband. Given that Buckingham was in charge of the Tower when the Princes disappeared, and wanted the throne himself, and given that the Richard was miles away at the time, I know what I think.

No one questions the royal burial of kings and queens who are PROVEN to have killed thousands. Henry Vlll - 20,000 souls; Victoria - Irish genocide by denying food aid, etc., etc.

@@rosemaryallen2128 Back then, you are right….they didn’t, and btw under the rule of Henry VIII it was more like 72,000! But I am talking about now NOT 500 years ago, and it is almost certain what Richard did to the children in HIS care, so why should this probable child murderer be given the honor of such a re-internment? Based on the values of today, seems a bit odd don’t you think? Queen Victoria was hardly in the same vane of the medieval kings, or wielded the same kind of power to make those kind of decisions! That is just a ridiculous assertion!!!

@@Tawny6702 If in a court of law, you happened to be innocent, but were convicted on 'ALMOST certain' evidence, I imagine you might complain. As to history, I was erring on the side of caution over Henry. The figure changes with historical fashion. And PM Lord Melbourne DID plead with Victoria to send aid to Ireland, and she adamantly refused. Millions starved to death, and her part in the tragedy has always been hushed up, like the fact that the English invented the concentration camp.

It has never been proven that Richard III killed his nephews. He had no reason to. They were declared illegitimate and posed no threat to his succession as king. They were, however, a threat to Henry VII whose claim to the throne was tenuous at best. He wanted to marry Elizabeth of York, the boys' sister, in order to connect his claim to the throne with the reign of Edward IV. He needed to undo Richard's declaration of illegitimacy and have Elizabeth declared legitimate again. In doing so, the boys would also then be legitimate and the rightful heirs to the throne. They had to go. It is also important to note that most of the stories linking Richard III to the killing of his nephews were written during the Tudor period by Tudor sympathizers.