• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Princes In The Tower

Who killed the princes in the Tower?

  • Richard

    Votes: 7 25.0%

  • Henry

    Votes: 9 32.1%

  • Someone we've not considered

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Total voters
    28
Before I stopped facebook I belonged to a group discussing medieval British architecture and there were two things that could get you knocked off the group: commenting on the spelling or grammar of other posters or posting about RIII.

But just to point out and I'm sure that most folk who frequent this site are familiar with this already:

Everything we think we know about the politics of the 15th century comes from Holinshed, Shakespeare's highly fanciful 16th century source. The story about the princes comes from Thomas More, d 1535 a contemporary and supporter of Henry VIII right up to that last unfortunate occurrence. Both sources were highly flattering to the Tudors (as was Shakespeare) because that's how people got paid. And if you weren't flattering to the family of Elizabeth I you were in deep trouble.

The first mention of the murder of the princes in the tower comes from More. There are no earlier sources or even evidence that there was a rumor around. Many consider More to have been a flat out brown-nosing propagandist. Of course, there are minimal written sources of history in any case from the 15th century . The occasional brief note by a monk keeping an annual chronicle. Some documentation of lawsuits, wills, and leases is available from local municipalities and a very few treasured family letters that have been passed down with the household accounting records. All fascinating and nothing says beans about the Yorkist kings or the princes. That in itself is interesting - we all know how well more than one person can keep a secret. Discounting More, there is only what we think we know about the behavior of the people involved. Nothing even hints at the kind of family upheaval that killing two small boys would have caused - widowed mother retiring to the country or even abroad, some letters and gossip in France and Scotland, Henry Tudor using the event to raise outrage and funds and hasten his planned invasion.

As to motive - RIII was made king because Edward's sons were too young, and England had had experience of what happens when you make a boy a king. He was not made regent. If he repaired the economy and the political ties of the country, which had been decimated during the wars of the roses, he could expect to keep the title. And really - if RIII was that worried about what the nephews might decide to do when they grew up, it would accomplish nothing to hide one of them away to become even more resentful. Note that nothing bad happened to the two kids of the Duke of Clarence the other York brother, older than RIII, who was found guilty in the reign of Edward IV of treason and executed (probably not including malmsey). His son was however executed by Henry VII. Many believe that Henry found the princes still in the tower and had them killed based on the evidence that we know that he had their cousin executed, albeit about 10 years after he took power and as I remember because the kid was causing trouble. So there you are. Perhaps someone will dig up contemporary evidence - I'm waiting for it along with the flying cars.
 
Last edited:
Reading Alison Weir's interesting but arguably flawed book titled The Princes In The Tower, I noticed something barely mentioned by the author that might be directly relevant to the princes' disappearance (and, possibly, their deaths):

Apparently, Prince Edward stood to gain titles and extensive and massively lucrative lands* - already granted to favoured others, in the princes' 'absence', or earmarked for those favourites or 'stolen' for the Crown by Richard III (later, Henry VII) - unless Edward died without issue. A live Prince Edward, then, presented a problem for those rulers, as did a dead prince; a vanished prince - be he living or deceased - ended that inconvenient problem. This theory might explain why, surprisingly, neither king presented conclusive and unimpeachable evidence in the form of a body or of the Prince's survival.

* The Mowbray inheritance and the dukedom/Duchy of Norfolk.
 
You've reminded me that I have Weir's book. I'll have to give it another read.
Then I'll re-read my copies of The Life and Times of Richard III (Anthony Cheetham) and Good King Richard? (Jeremy Potter).
As far as I recall, they are a balanced look at his reputation and the sources for it. Naturally they address the Princes' disappearance and potential motives.
 
I've been reminded that I was given that book for Christmas too! Haven't read it yet...

But I do remember seeing or reading somewhere a theory that the boys both died of illnesses whilst in the tower (there are records of a doctor visiting). If they had both died of natural causes, it would be very hard to explain away. Who would believe that they hadn't been killed? End result the same - Richard continues to rule. So the deaths wouldn't necessarily have been announced, the bodies would have been disposed of and the whole thing never spoken of again.

It's a theory.
 
One argument against it being an assassination ordered by King Richard was that he was not so secure in his position as Lord Protector (in effect a Regent) that he could just remove his 'charges' without comment. While we regard many medieval kings as despots, they still needed the support of the Barons and the Earls.
 
I’d recommend watching this

The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence

On Ch 4. Phillipa Langley has scoured historical archives on the Continent & found some very persuasive evidence.

Cutting a long story short the evidence found points more than strongly that they weren’t murdered but were freed, went to Europe & subsequently raised forces to try to regain the throne ‘stolen’ from them.

History being written by the winners means the prevailing established version is false to hide the truth. Well worth a watch. Phillipa Langley has done a remarkable job.
 
I think that Richard III and Henry VII were more-or-less as bad as each other, and therefore both were very capable of having the princes killed. Both kings were (loosely-speaking) paranoid - Richard, because of the precariousness of his usurped position and his worries about Woodville enmity and machinations; and Henry, because his life of exile led to utter distrust in 99.9% of the people around him...which meant that he became money-obsessed, as he felt that bribes and bonds were the only reliable way to gain or maintain people's loyalty. Both men were murderous, regardless of a surface sheen of staged civility and occasional magnanimity: Richard's illegal executions of Hastings, Rivers, Grey, Haute and Vaughan make this clear, while Henry's artful disposing of the young Earl of Warwick, Warbeck et al underline his bloodied pragmatism. Both kings acted totally illegally, in various ways; it's just that Henry's crimes were more often of the financial kind (as Thomas Penn's acclaimed The Winter King outlines in great detail).
 
Last edited:
hunck said:
I’d recommend watching this

The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence

On Ch 4. Phillipa Langley has scoured historical archives on the Continent & found some very persuasive evidence.

Cutting a long story short the evidence found points more than strongly that they weren’t murdered but were freed, went to Europe & subsequently raised forces to try to regain the throne ‘stolen’ from them.

History being written by the winners means the prevailing established version is false to hide the truth. Well worth a watch. Phillipa Langley has done a remarkable job.
Click to expand...
There's an excellent video where whatshisname (famous historian) refutes most of her evidence. It's an interesting watch, whichever side you come down on. Unfortunately I watched the video and was then given the book for Christmas, so I'm not quite as keen to dive in and read it as I might be, now I know there are flaws in the argument.

 
Yep.
That looks legit.
Sneaking into the bedroom of sleeping boys in order to suffocate them? Make sure you wear full plate harness, including sallet, but don't forget the striped pillow!
He might be wearing fluffy slippers, I suppose.
 
Stormkhan said:
Yep.
That looks legit.
Sneaking into the bedroom of sleeping boys in order to suffocate them? Make sure you wear full plate harness, including sallet, but don't forget the striped pillow!
He might be wearing fluffy slippers, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Victorian artwork is not noted for its historical accuracy.
 
Am currently re-reading Ann Wroe's work of genius The Perfect Prince (about Perkin Warbeck). If, as seems disappointingly certain, Warbeck was an imposter then it strikes me that there's often something uncanny about such intriguing frauds. For instance, many who knew young Prince Richard really saw great likenesses to the Plantagenet/Woodville family in Warbeck's face, body, habits etc etc; equally, those who came to believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanov, and even those neutral court-appointed experts concerned with physiology, admitted that various bodily and facial similarities were uncanny. All this can't really be explained away by 'coaching' of the imposters, or even by believing that they were chosen by their supposed coaches & 'sponsors' as already looking similar to the real thing. It's a strange, perhaps deeply mysterious kind of 'fluke'.
 
catseye said:
I've been reminded that I was given that book for Christmas too! Haven't read it yet...

But I do remember seeing or reading somewhere a theory that the boys both died of illnesses whilst in the tower (there are records of a doctor visiting). If they had both died of natural causes, it would be very hard to explain away. Who would believe that they hadn't been killed? End result the same - Richard continues to rule. So the deaths wouldn't necessarily have been announced, the bodies would have been disposed of and the whole thing never spoken of again.

It's a theory.
Click to expand...

That's a far more plausible one than many! And I personally conclude that when a theory is simple, not popular with either end of more sensationalist opinion the more likely it is to be one that may be correct.

Given that The Tower was surrounded by water at the time, not an especially healthy environment for two children, albeit a secure one. We know that diseases were rife in Mediaeval times.

Richard had no legitimate heirs as his only son had died shortly before, and his wife Anne Neville had died in early 1485, the year of the battle of Bosworth. It may have been he was planning to remarry and beget heirs but until then his heirs were a selection of nephews and nieces, and it makes no sense that he would murder them.
 
Yes, it's a very good point, I think. Similarly, (and as Anony mentioned) despite the expected, over-cautious atmosphere surrounding Richard III's son & heir he too passed away when young after being in his appointed household...which was, again, near to marshes, rivers etc. The histories of the Plantagenets and the Tudors are sadly littered with early deaths of such high-ranking youngsters and even of their very young spouses; often due to them living in deadly environments of luxury.
 
Last edited:
I think the theory went that Edward V (the elder boy) might have already had consumption before they even went into the Tower. His brother would, almost certainly, have caught it off him. This is based, if I remember rightly, on the account of one of the royal doctors.

I also think Richard III had a breakdown after the deaths of his son and wife which made him behave strangely.
 
catseye said:
There's an excellent video where whatshisname (famous historian) refutes most of her evidence. It's an interesting watch, whichever side you come down on. Unfortunately I watched the video and was then given the book for Christmas, so I'm not quite as keen to dive in and read it as I might be, now I know there are flaws in the argument.

Click to expand...
She sounds like she knows what she’s talking about. The New Evidence theory seems dubious now.
 
At heart, I don't have a definite opinion on whether the boys even died, let alone were murdered. And, in truth, I find it incredibly difficult to accept the idea of the pragmatism/survivalism of (former Queen) Elizabeth Woodville in having or wanting anything to do with Richard III (the supposedly guilty party). The younger Elizabeth even contemplated marrying him(!) Even allowing for a bloody-minded pragmatism or desperate survival instinct on the women's part, to trust in and even love Richard seems inexplicable to me; after all, he was widely thought to have murdered EW's son and, in the younger woman's case, her brother. Even accepting - as we're often informed - that these were brutal times, when nobles would kill their own family members, close relatives of the victims fraternising with a child-killer appears unfathomable to me.
 
It's hardly surprising that Philippa Langley exhorts a pro-Richard stance. She's a leading member of "The Richard III Society" which, even though the website says it advocates a more balanced overview of his life, it's actually just a group that only seems to emphasise the good and denigrate the bad things about him. A hagiography in other words.
 
The Project’s Four Headline Discoveries (according to Philippa Langley's website):

'Discovery 1: Forensic investigation of all records dating to the reign of Richard III revealed no evidence of the death of Edward V or Richard, Duke of York. Both individuals are referenced as alive in all existing day-to-day accounting and legal records.'

This means nothing, and was a very common kind of deception/practice (usually done in order to buy time for vested parties); for example, Henry VII's death was not announced even to extremely high-ranking nobles for days, simply because of ministers', relations' and advisers' fears that those nobles would attempt a coup or a Council takeover. At very least, it was feared that they would attempt to gain overarching influence on royal matters present and future. This kind of thing has happened time and again in royal history; the only difference in this instance is Richard III's concern for his reputation and status should it be revealed that the princes were deceased..

'Discovery 2: Forensic investigation of all materials relating to the Battle of Bosworth (22 August 1485) revealed that the story of the murder of the Princes originated in England with the arrival of Henry Tudor and his French invasion force. Following the victory of Tudor’s forces (and death of King Richard in battle), and the interrogation of Yorkist/Ricardian prisoners, Henry delayed his march to London in order to conduct searches for the Princes in the north of England.'

This isn't factual - at least five well-known & highly-ranked sources wrote that the rumour was rife amongst people at all levels of society, well before Henry invaded. Though Henry certainly sought evidence, at various times, of course.

'Discovery 3: Edward V: Proof of Life (aged 17). In May 2020, Albert Jan de Rooij of the Dutch Research Group discovered in the archive of Lille in France a receipt belonging to King Maximilian I dated 16 December 1487 and referencing Margaret of Burgundy (Edward’s aunt). The receipt is signed by three leading members of Maximilian’s court and records the king’s collection of, and payment for, 400 pikes (weapons for elite troops). The weapons had been collected by Maximilian in June of that year. The receipt states that the weapons were: ‘to serve her nephew – son of King Edward, late her brother (may God save his soul), [who was] expelled from his dominion.’ Four of the receipts details confirm the weapons were for Edward V. He was the nephew of Margaret of Burgundy, the son of King Edward (IV), the right age to lead an army and fight in battle (16), and had been ‘expelled from his dominion’ (to the Channel Islands). The Lille receipt also suggests that Edward V was alive, or thought to be alive, in December 1487 (age 17). This was after the Battle of Stoke on 16 June 1487.'

Given that Margaret's and Maximilian's protégé, the imposter Perkin Warbeck, wasn't captured and imprisoned by Henry VII until 1497 - and wasn't executed until 1499 - it's hardly surprising to find him posing as either Duke Richard or indeed as Edward (the Fifth) back in the 1480s. He'd formerly posed as the Earl of Warwick too. Margaret herself admitted to Henry VII that Warbeck was an imposter.

'Discovery 4: Richard, Duke of York: Proof of Life (aged 20), 1493. In November 2020, Nathalie Nijman-Bliekendaal of the Dutch Research Group rediscovered a four page, semi-legal manuscript in the Gelderland archive, in Arnhem in the Netherlands. It is a witness statement written in the first person and records Richard, Duke of York’s story from the point at which he left sanctuary in Westminster in London as a 9 year-old boy in 1483, to his arrival at the court of his aunt, Margaret of York, in Burgundy in 1493. The witness statement provides extensive detail.'

Even those looking to support Warbeck's/Richard's/Edward's quest for the English throne - including Spanish royals Ferdinand and Isabella - disbelieved the story of escape he'd been coached by Margaret into reciting (in fact, those two important royals were scathing in their doubt). Having read this account, it beggars belief that he was spared while his brother was murdered; in short, it's a fantasy told in a dubiously vague, sentimental and fey style.

--------

All of my objections would be known to anyone with a particular interest in the mystery; these would surely be known to someone as involved as Philippa. The only novel aspects are the discoveries of previously unknown sources or artefacts.
 
I suspect that had they used someone more familiar with the history of the era than Rob Rinder he wouldn't have come up with such glittering conclusions. Rinders a nice guy but I think they got him because he's (a) famous and (b) as a judge they thought he could weigh evidence impartially. Maybe that's true, but I don't think it applies in the case of historical documents. Even being given a historical briefing beforehand to get him up to speed on medieval niceties is suspect - especially if, as I suspect, those with vested agendas provide the back stories.
 
The problem is using modern judgement on historic situations.
Great for publicity etc. but hardly balanced.
Examining old 'crimes' automatically sets an artificial boundary; what is legal now?
At the time, some actions were perfectly acceptable to some people - hardly worth comment. But forensic consideration is made as a modern decision.
Could/did Richard III kill the (highly romantic) Princes in the Tower? Possibly yes. But also no. Both sides in this incredibly theoretical discussion can draw on recorded accounts. However, from our own position in history, we can put any interpretation on them.
History is written by the winners.
True, the accounts can be cherry-picked and skewed but, if there's an alternative account then it's there to be discovered. It depends on who is looking for it!
 
I am firmly on the side of Richard III (although perhaps not quite as firmly as Phillipa Langley). I don't believe he killed the princes in the tower himself, physically, but I do feel that a certain element of 'will no one rid me of this turbulent priest' may apply here. For anyone who doesn't know, this was supposedly what was said by Henry II and misinterpreted by a group of knights, who subsequently killed Thomas Beckett.

Perhaps someone ELSE thought Richard's position might be more secure if the princes no longer existed? Once they were done away with, whether Richard knew or not, it was a fait accompli.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top