The monarchs of England have a long and bloody history concerning who sits on the throne and today we will be looking into one such case that still fascinates and intrigues as we look into the infamous Princes in the Tower.
It was the year 1483 and England had been gripped in a civil war between Yorkist and Lancastrian forces known as the War of the Roses that started in 1455 and wouldn't end until 1487. On the throne sat King Edward IV who had been a central figure in the war and had inherited the Yorkist claim after his father, Richard, Duke of York had died in the Battle of Wakefield in December 1460. Edward had then deposed King Henry VI and took the throne after defeating Lancastrian forces at Mortimer's Cross and Towton in early 1461.
Edward married Elizabeth Woodville in 1964, which led to conflict with his advisor Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, also known as the Kingmaker, who ended up leading a revolt against Edward and succeeded in reinstalling Henry VI in 1470, however, it was brief as Edward won back his throne in March 1471 and with Henry dying in the Tower of London not long after Edward saw peace in his kingdom for the next twelve years despite the threat of the last Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor, in the background.
Edward's reign would come to a sudden end on April 9 1483 when after an illness lasting around three weeks the King would die unexpectedly, he was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. This left the problem of succession, Edward and Elizabeth had two surviving sons, Edward V and Richard, who were only 12 and 9 years old. Edward realised his health was failing and made arrangements for his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to become Lord Protector (a regent to rule until Edward V was old enough) in the event of his death. However, this may not have mattered as the council were not bound to follow a deceased king's wishes. Edward's lack of planning of succession in the event of his death would cause a lot of problems for England.
After Prince Edward made the planned journey to London for his coronation with his uncle Richard, they make a stop at Stony Stratford on April 29 where on the following morning Richard arrests Edward's retinue which included the boys uncle and their half brother who were then sent to Pontefract Castle where on June 25 they were beheaded. Richard then took possession of the future king leading the former Queen Elizabeth to take her son Richard and daughters into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey.
Edward's coronation was due to take place on May 4 but was postponed until June 25. During this time Edward stayed in the Tower of London, this was the traditional place for monarchs to stay until their coronation. On June 16, he was joined by his younger brother who had left the safety of Westminster Abbey, his mother had been persuaded to let Richard go to keep his brother company while he awaited his coronation. It was at this point that Richard postponed his nephews coronation indefinitely and on June 22 a sermon by the Lord Mayor of London stated Richard to be the only true heir to the throne. This was followed by Parliament declaring both princes as illegitimate as they claimed the marriage of their father Edward and mother Elizabeth was invalid as Edward had had a pre-contract of marriage to another woman, a special dispensation by the Pope would have been required to make the marriage legal and it had not be sought. This lead to their uncle Richard being crowned King Richard III on July 6 1483. Historians believe King Richard orchestrated this to seize control of the crown from his nephews.
After King Richard's coronation his nephews were taken deep into the Tower of London and slowly over time, were seen less and less until they weren't seen ever again. There are reports of the two princes being seen playing in the grounds shortly after the brothers were reunited but there are no confirmed sightings of them after the summer of 1483. The last person to see the princes was Edward V's physician Dr Argentine who reported that he was suffering from melancholy:
"...the young King, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him." Dominic Mancini 1483
There was an attempt to rescue them in July that year following a rebellion to King Richard's reign and to place Edward on the throne but after the Duke of Buckingham became involved the plan then shifted to support of Henry Tudor.
Without proof of what happened to the princes, historians believe that they may have been murdered, whether by their uncle or on his orders remains a mystery but experts believe it happened in late July of 1483. In notes by Richard III's household there is a mention of children being together at breakfast but there is no clear definition of who the children are as the princes sisters were also under Richard's care at the time.
There is no solid proof of what befell the boys and no evidence they were murdered, they could have died of natural causes or in an accident, there are only rumours and of course we can't forget that Henry Tudor's supporters would have jumped on a chance to smear King Richard and any writings after Henry Tudor took the throne can't be taken as fact as they may be Tudor propaganda.
In The History of King Richard III by Thomas More (a Tudor loyalist) in 1513 he identified Sir James Tyrell, a knight and trusted supporter of King Richard, as the murderer who acted on his King's orders, Tyrell is meant to have confessed to the princes murders before his execution for treason in 1502, he described how he smothered them to death with a pillow and they were then buried in a secret place nearby but later moved to another unknown location. Of course, we can't fail to mention the famous William Shakespeare play Richard III, that depicts Richard as the murderer as he commands Tyrell to carry out the act. It was largely believed at the time this was what had happened so what was Tudor propaganda was then turned into historical fact thanks to Shakespeare and has endured to present day. It was this play that brought the popular belief that Richard was a hunchback and generally a villainous person, of course we can say this may have been a little Tudor propaganda here and the discovery of Richard III's body proved he didn't have a hunchback.
The Tower of London was being remodelled in 1674 and during this time a wooden box was unearthed under the staircase leading to the chapel of the White Tower, it contained two small human skeletons. These were not the first childrens skeletons found as the bones of two more children had been found in a walled up old chamber. These bones are reported to have been found this pieces of rag and velvet around them which would suggest these children were of a higher social class.
The bones were examined in 1933, measuring the bones and teeth they found that the bones belonged to two children who would have been the correct ages for the princes with one skeleton being larger than the other. But, the interment had been a messy job as chicken bones and other animal bones are mixed in with the children's bones, there are also many bones missing, part of the jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger skeleton and many of the bones had been broken by the workmen who found them. This examination has been heavily criticised as the assumption these were the princes was the only identity considered and it concentrated only on finding signs of suffocation with no attempt to even determine if the bones belong to a male or female. These are interred in Westminster Abbey in an urn.
There have been no further examination on the bones as Westminster Abbey have been reluctant to agree to further tests. An online petition was created to do DNA testing on the bones but it was strangely shut down before its end date, in the UK if a petition gets over 100,000 signatures Parliament has to consider it. It has been pointed out that even if a DNA test proves these bones belong to the princes there would be no way to determine how they died and if they were murdered prove who the culprit was but if the bones were the princes it would prove they died at the time historians believe.
In 1789, when workmen were carrying out repairs in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, they accidentally broke into and rediscovered the resting place of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville and found a small adjoining vault where the remains of two children were found. No examinations were done and the tomb was resealed. The tomb had inscribed the names of the royal couples children, George (who died at the age of 2) and Mary (who died at the age of 14), both had died before the King. Oddly, two coffins clearly marked with George and Mary's names had already been found elsewhere in the Chapel but no one made any effort to discover the identity of the two coffins in the vault.
In recent years there has been renewed interest in finding out the identity of the children in the coffins but as these are royal remains a member of the current royal family would have to give blessing for the remains to be examined. Current Queen Elizabeth II has not granted approval for the testing to be done but there are rumours of Prince Charles (who will succeed his mother) is more open to idea of the testing.
Let's look into some of the most popular theories of what befell the princes:
It was Richard III...
Many believe that Richard is the person who benefits the most off the princes deaths and as King he certainly had the means. Richard's hold on the crown wasn't as secure as he would have liked due to manner on how he'd effectively stolen it from his nephew. With the rescue attempt and plan to place his nephew on the throne the boys were a clear threat to his rule and could be used against him. Even with rumours swirling that the princes were dead Richard made no move to dispel them by having the princes brought out in public nor did he order an investigation into what happened to them (this would have helped clear him of any involvement in their deaths), this suggests that they were in fact dead but Richard didn't keep silent about the allegations, in Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (1577) he states this about Richard:
"what with purging and declaring his innocence concerning the murder of his nephews towards the world, and what with cost to obtain the love and favour of the communal tie (which outwardlie glosed, and openly dissembled with him) ... gave prodigally so many and so great rewards, that now both he lacked, and scarce with honesty how to borrow."
Richard was away at court when the murders were meant to have taken place. They were under guard by his men in the Tower of London, which meant access to them was very limited and only by Richard's blessing, if they were killed it was unlikely that he didn't know about it. Sir James Tyrell would fit this theory of acting on Richard's order as we mentioned before being a loyal supporter of the York claim he certainly would have reason and opportunity. It is worth noting that Tyrell admitted to the murders after being tortured during his imprisonment and did implicate two other men but failed to know where the bodies were, stating that the other men had moved them after the initial burial - this does fit in with the two coffins in the Chapel theory. But as there is only one persons word (and a Tudor loyalists) and no official document confirming Tyrell's confession we can't take this as fact.
Richard remains suspect number one in the case and with no formal word he will likely remain so. In Henry VII's Bill of Attainder while discussing Richard III there is no direct mention of the princes but it is hinted at in this passage:
"the unnatural, mischievous and great perjuries, treasons, homicides and murders, in shedding of infant's blood, with many other wrongs, odious offences and abominations against God and man"
The shedding of infants blood may be a reference to the boys. The fact this was said in Parliament suggests the belief of Richard's guilt was widely accepted as fact. Of course, Richard met a grim end himself, being killed in the Battle of Bosworth (he is also the last English king to be killed in battle) after one of his allies turned on him at the last minute giving the outnumbered Henry Tudor victory, Richard also put up one hell of a final stand according to reports coming within a swords width of Tudor he was then surrounded by enemies and killed. He was famously discovered under a car park after being lost to history in 2012 (positively identified in 2013) where it was discovered the King had died from a gruesome wound to head that had hacked off a large part of the back of his skull meaning his brain was exposed. If he had killed his nephews then karma clearly got it's own back on Richard, as his body was also stripped and paraded through crowds where it was stabbed repeatedly...
It was Henry Stafford, Second Duke of Buckingham...
Also known as Richard's right hand, this one hinges on the princes being dead by the time Stafford was executed in November 1483. He has some motives himself, he was apparently a descendant of multiple notable people and perhaps hoped that by killing the princes he may be able to usurp the throne or perhaps do so on behalf of someone else. Stafford had rebelled against Richard in October 1483 which of course makes you think that he and the King had fallen out, some think Stafford found out Richard murdered the boys and that's what caused him to rebel while others think this isn't the case. A Portuguese source states this for Stafford being the culprit:
"...and after the passing away of King Edward in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death."
There have been other documents that point to Stafford as the killer, with the help of Tyrell, committed the murders to help Richard, with the King having no idea of the plan until it was too late, if this was the case why did Richard not tell everyone, especially after Stafford's treason and execution, the King could have cleared his own name. It is unlikely that if it was Stafford he would have acted alone, he would have needed Richard's approval to access the princes, there are theories that as Constable of England he would have been exempt from this but once again there are no hard facts on Stafford.
It was Henry Tudor aka Henry VII...
Following his victory over Richard in the Battle of Bosworth Henry was crowned King and started his reign by executing some rival claimants to the throne. King Richard's illegitimate son is rumoured to be among those killed. Henry was out of the country in exile at the time of the murders so like Richard it would have had to be someone acting on his orders.
The year after becoming King, Henry married the princes' eldest sister Elizabeth of York to cement his claim to the throne, of course, Elizebeth along with her brothers had been proclaimed illegitimate by their uncle so Henry had this repealed. It is thought if it was Henry, he had the boys killed between June 16 and July 16 1486, and that after this the rumours that Richard did it started to swirl and that the princes mother Elizabeth Woodville knew this to be a lie so had to also be silenced. Elizabeth was stripped of all lands and possessions in February 1487 and confined to Bermondsey Abbey where she died six years later. Of course this can also be put down to a political move or a personal reason rather than a cover up. The fact that Henry's claim the to the throne was also not very strong is also another motive as the princes had the best claim.
Henry's silence over the princes may have been more of a political move rather than one out of guilt. It is also worth noting Henry has never been accused by anyone in any writings by friend or foe. As with Richard there is no evidence and if he did the murder surely he would have produced the bodies and directly accused Richard if he had all the evidence. There is also the theory that the younger brother, Richard, survived while Edward died and Henry chose to keep quiet about the boys survival or to quietly have him executed along with the other claimants.
With the Tower of London's bloody history there are multiple reports of ghosts haunting the landmark and the princes are two ghosts rumoured to haunt the building. There are two little boys dressed in nightgowns holding hands that are seen in the White Tower, some reports say the two are sobbing and clinging to each other but in 1990 two Coldstream guards reported hearing the sound of children laughing outside the Tower. The ghost sightings of the princes have been reported since the 15th century.
One other theory we found during research is that perhaps the princes fell victim to an illness (Edward was seen repeatedly by a doctor) and their uncle refused to acknowledge their deaths out of embarrassment at the loss of the princes or he chose to ignore such rumours as the boys were in fact alive and well in the Tower. It has been pointed out that if Richard killed his nephews then why did he not kill his nieces? Or his other brother George and his children who would have had a claim (and possibly a better one) than him. The Richard III Society (they are trying to clear the name of Richard) states that Henry is the most likely culprit as Richard's claim was stronger and Henry would gain more from the their deaths especially after Richard's defeat and death as if the boys were still alive they would be an enormous threat to his reign, he could then blame it on the former King and reinforce his standing as the rightful King. There are also rumours of Prince Richard surviving and living out the rest of his days in anonymity.
As we can see the tale of the Two Princes in the Tower is a complicated tale full of twists and turns with very little real evidence, the problem of political propaganda and with a reluctance in modern times to test remains the princes story still doesn't have its end. The culprit who has the most motive does seem to be their uncle but whether he could have been so cruel as to murder his young nephews is something we will never know, whether Richard is the victim of a smear campaign by the Tudors is another story but for now the mystery of the fate of the princes is without an answer but we can hope that one day the royal family will allow the princes to get their stories told.
Kommentare