1

This (long) argument about the murders of the boy-king, Edward V, and his brother, Richard (Duke of York) in (around) September 1483 continues. Many opine (including members of "The Richard III Society") that Richard of Gloucester/ Richard III was not responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

My question is this: given that he, Richard, put the boys in the Tower; held them there; controlled all access to them; then, he, Richard, was responsible for anything that happened to them, even if he was a 1000-miles away, at the time, wasn't he?

What would contemporary law say? Would it be any different from the law in the 15th. Century--how would one find that out?

tony
  • 113
  • 4
  • Can't we say something similar about any small child? They don't leave home except with their parent's permission, and their parent similarly controls all access. Does it follow that whenever a small child is harmed, no matter how or by whom, the parent is automatically (legally) responsible? – Nate Eldredge Oct 21 '23 at 16:05
  • @Nate Eldridge: If the child is a prisoner, in one building, and only one person controls all their movements and all access to that child; then, what do you think? – tony Oct 21 '23 at 16:12
  • You realize that under 15th century law he king cold often just declare someone guilty of any capital crime? – Trish Oct 23 '23 at 22:57

1 Answers1

3

People die with no one responsible

Fatal accidents and illnesses are a thing, even in the 21st century, let alone the 15th. We don't hold guardians (or jailors) responsible for such deaths.

The Tower of London was a 400-year-old building at the time, and 11th-century building codes were light on in the safety department. When you visit the tower today, you access some areas by 20th-century staircases because the original ones can't be made safe. It's easy to see two adolescent boys playing as knights taking a tragic and fatal tumble down the staircase. On not playing, at that age, these boys would have been well into their training at arms - with real swords in mock battles; that's hella dangerous.

Encephalitis is often fatal today. Do you know what was also fatal in the 14th century? Everything. No antibiotics, no antiseptics, no refrigeration. So many ways to get sick and die.

So, no, merely being responsible for the boys would not make Richard necessarily responsible for their deaths.

Could he be convicted of murder today?

Yes.

He had motive, and opportunity, and he must have known how they died (if, in fact they died before he did - which seems most likely). People have been convicted on less.

TylerDurden
  • 1
  • 1
  • 30
  • 92
Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Dale M Oct 22 '23 at 11:30