Princes in the Tower - new evidence

[RaelImperialAerosolKid]

Did anyone catch this. I love Phillipa Langley - she is a true eccentric and has taken her love of Richard III and seems to have found evidence that the princes survived.
She is named as historian here - whereas previously historians were a bit snobbish about her.
Got to I admire her - she may have pulled it off again.

@TurquoiseMermaid
Richard III and Henry VII are the two plausible contenders according to historians. It’s not at all settled that Richard III definitely had them murdered.

The bones found in the Tower may not even be the two princes because there are also two mystery lead coffins in Windsor castle as well.

One reason given as to why Richard III would not have publicly paraded them to prove they were alive was because that would have been begging for a kidnapping/rescue attempt by rebels who would seek to overthrow him. There had been a failed kidnapping/rescue attempt and one theory is that Richard III then moved the boys to Windsor castle secretly which is why people stopped seeing them at the Tower.

Henry VII was still in France during summer 1483, but in England Stafford was plotting rebellion to coincide with his invasion. This included rumours the princes were dead to turn nobles and commoner alike against Richard III. Henry VII attempted an invasion the autumn of 1483 but failed and escaped back to France. Then in December 1483 he pledged to marry Elizabeth of York (so now he had motive to ensure she was Edward V’s only heir no matter the truth). So a lot was going on in England on his behalf before 1485.

No legitimate historian regards the theory that Henry Tudor murdered them as credible. Pollard does say in his book that Henry Tudor is the only plausible suspect after Richard, but he also spends quite a bit of time dismantling the theory and poking holes in it, and clearly doesn't believe it.

Even Jeremy Potter (chair of the Richard III Society, and one of the leading Ricardians) was on record as saying there was no evidence pointing to Henry's involvement, and pointed out that Henry was such an astute and brutal political operator, if he had killed the boys, he would have produced the bodies and used them to benefit himself (producing the bodies would have benefitted him in two ways, first it proves they're dead which stops any potential challenge to his legitimacy and stops the threat of pretenders to the throne, and second producing the bodies legitimises the rumours that Richard killed them). Henry had nothing to gain by leaving their disappearances a mystery and letting people speculate that they were still alive, whereas Richard needed people to believe they were still alive.

If you look at the contemporary sources accusing Richard of murder, there's simply no evidence to say that Henry or Stafford started those. That's trying to shore up a rumour with more rumours.

His marriage to Elizabeth of York isn't really relevant since he claimed the crown by right of conquest, not via his marriage, so he basically avoided the whole Titulus Regius issue anyway.

It's beyond plausibility that Richard would happily let people believe he was a child murderer for two years just to prevent a hypothetical potential rescue attempt. And what would his motivation be? I mean, in this scenario, is Richard just such a wonderful selfless person that he'd damage his reputation and endanger his safety just to prevent the possibility of danger to the nephews he kidnapped and had declared illegitimate? If he was worried they'd be used to depose him, well, surely if he was that worried then he'd just kill them and remove the possibility altogether?

There are also multiple accounts that give a great deal of detail (which all match each other) as to exactly how Richard had the murder carried out. There's nothing similar for any of the other "suspects"; even people who believe that Henry or Margaret are the killers have never been able to come up with a theory for how, in a practical sense, they would have managed to have someone gain access to the Tower while it was under Richard's control, conduct a double murder, then escape.

The evidence against Richard is far from solid, but he's simply the most logical candidate. They vanished while in his care, he has the most obvious motive, he has the most obvious opportunity, and he had a proven history of killing people and doing anything else necessary to seize the throne. There just isn't any reason to invent elaborate theories with no evidence to create other suspects. Either Richard killed them, or no one did.

I see you are dearly wedded to your certitude.

However, it is very possible that Henry VII is a candidate for the murders.
First, the contention that if he had murdered them, then he would have produced the bodies assumes he would have decided to be in the vicinity when they were murdered. Surely too that is the act of a guilty man?

There was frequent use of assassins by the aristocracy to eliminate targets abroad as well as close by. This continued all during Henry VII’s reign and his son Henry VIII was well schooled in it as well. Henry VII could have easily had them murdered right around the time he was announcing his marriage to Elizabeth of York. He didn’t avoid the Titulus Regis issue because remember he always intended to assert the legitimacy of all Edward V and Elizabeth Woodville’s children (overturning the illegitimacy one done earlier) which once he did would make not only his wife to be legitimate, but the two princes the legitimate heirs to the throne, not him. He was descended from a bastard in the female line, right of conquest would not mean he could found a dynasty and keep the throne. He needed a legitimate, royal princess but not her brothers. So one way or another the princes had to go. He had clear motive to get rid of them no later than Christmas 1483 when after his brief autumnal sojourn in England, he declared his intent to marry Elizabeth of York when back in France.

Was the failed invasion of England in the autumn of 1483, even meant to be an invasion? Or was it a cover for his real mission- to hire some assassins to kill the Princes and then job done, scurry back to France and announce marriage to Elizabeth who he could now safely make a royal and legitimate bride with no pesky brothers to pop up as legitimate heirs? And then while Richard III protests his innocence over the recently disappeared princes, gather his forces and invade?

You see I disagree the disappearance of the princes was all to Henry’s disadvantage and all to Richard’s advantage. Richard III gave reasons why he couldn’t publicly show them, but every historian agrees that it was a stupid decision not to if they were alive. Historians also agree it was a stupid political move for Richard III to murder the princes, if he did do it, because it basically united Yorkists and Lancastrians against little old him who had already successfully taken the throne. It wasn’t a good move to keep the throne. He was vulnerable, being deformed in a way that would have most people thinking he was an imp of Satan anyway. So easy to make people believe the worst of him.

So, even though it is likely the Princes did die under Richard III’s “watch” it doesn’t mean he murdered them or ordered their death or was even within 100 miles of them when they were murdered. The War of the Roses included all sorts of sneaky court intrigue and assassinations.

As I said, both are plausible contenders according to historians, and yes these are legitimate historians too.

There are also multiple accounts that give a great deal of detail (which all match each other) as to exactly how Richard had the murder carried out.

The accounts all trace back to Sir Thomas More writing in the time of Henry VIII. He would hardly write that Henry VIII was the son of a usurper!

Sorry Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. It’s getting late here.

I'm really enjoying this thread and am thankful that more knowledgeable posters than me are discussing this from both sides.
I hope you all continue the discussion from both sides.
I'm finding it actually more balanced than the documentary which I did feel as though it was making the evidence fit, and while somewhat convincing, wasn't the slam dunk I was expecting.
One question that has always intrigued me is that if it's proved the bodies aren't of the princes, then what is their story.
Is it simply coincidental that the bodies are proposed to be similar ages or could they have been placed for whatever reason?
Please keep this thread going for numptys like me because it's rare to find a good natured debate anywhere on MN these days!

The bodies in the Tower could be any children who lived there. As the documentary mentioned, it was a very busy place at the time with various inhabitants and it’s possible that two children living there around the right time died and were buried there, now forgotten by history. On the other hand, they could be the princes.

I have to say I do find the Devon theory quite fun; that Edward V lived out his days quietly in anonymity and only when he died did they go all out for him with the church window. Actually to me more plausible than him heading off to head invasions, but then I do like a quiet life. Being a medieval noble does sounds exhaustingly relentless.

The Perkin Warbeck issue has always shed massive doubt on whether the princes were killed. There is a significant probability that the children escaped during the time of Richard III and that Warbeck genuinely was the Duke of York. If he was simply a commoner and a conman trying to steal the throne there is next to no chance he'd have been taken to court once captured and allowed to live there. He'd have been straight off to the tower and publicly executed to deter others. He was literally (apparently) a nobody.

He was locked away with his cousin (also a threat to the throne) once he tried to leave since the only reason for that would have been to try to put together an army an assert his right to the throne again. As with his cousin, the family preference would have been for him to be alive but not to be rocking the boat by destabilising a period of relative calm with the houses joined through the marriage to Elizabeth.

Interestingly DS who is a massive war of the Roses/Tudor buff completely disagrees with me (although he hasn't yet seen the documentary or the documents). He thinks Perkin Warbeck was just an imposter, backed by Europeans trying to destabilise the throne.

Yes. I distinctly recall hearing this same story re Perkin Warbeck, about 20-25 years ago?

The story isn’t new; the new bits (supposedly) are the supporting documents. It is though being presented from scratch for the many people who haven’t come across it before.

Exactly, Perkin Warbeck is an extremely well known historical figure. The documents are the new bits and they genuinely are fairly new

I am a Ricardian - in that I am from Yorkshire ! Still cheer when I see the White Rose when returning on the m62.

The documentary made it seem like these were all brand new discoveries- especially the document with the seals. Is this not the case?

Really interesting to here both sides of the discussion. Lucy Worsleys documentary came down definitely against Richard - but Horrible Histories (where I get most of my historical education) was more of good King Richard.

As I said, I've seen frustratingly passing allusions to the documents already being known about and discounted but no detail - and that kind of detail would have been great in the documentary. They did refer to the 'testimony' having been known about and not considered valid in the past but nothing else.

I don't know if the book goes into that sort of detail; I'd really hope it would.

Henry VII could have easily had them murdered right around the time he was announcing his marriage to Elizabeth of York.

That doesn't explain how they vanished for more than two years, or why Richard would allow his reputation to be so badly sullied by letting people believe he was a child murderer when he could have produced them and ended those rumours instantly. (The argument that he didn't want to risk their safety doesn't wash, as he could easily have simply had them moved elsewhere immediately afterwards.)

He was descended from a bastard in the female line, right of conquest would not mean he could found a dynasty and keep the throne.

But that's exactly what he did. He didn't claim the throne based on being married to the heir; that's just not how it works. The reason he married EoY was to bring together the houses of York and Lancaster and stop the fighting, and yes to help safeguard his offspring. But his own 'right to rule' was based on "right of conquest", shored up by the fact he was descended from John of Gaunt. (His mother always pushed him as a candidate based on that ancestry, and had been doing so from the time he was pretty young, so clearly she believed he could make a claim to the throne based solely on the fact he was a direct descendent of Edward III, since EoY wasn't in the picture when Margaret started pushing her son as a rightful heir.) Marrying the King's daughter certainly helped his case, but officially and legally he took the throne on the grounds of "Right of Conquest."

He was vulnerable, being deformed in a way that would have most people thinking he was an imp of Satan anyway.

He wasn't a hunchback, he just had scoliosis. Osteoarchaeologists who have examined his skeleton believe that his scoliosis was mild enough that it wouldn't have even been visible when he was clothed. Clearly people did know that he had something wrong with his spine since it made it into Shakespeare's play, but the play is a work of fiction and Tudor propaganda. There's no evidence the general public at the time considered him deformed or "an imp of Satan" or anything like that, and Richard in his earlier years was beloved by the people (especially in York).

The accounts all trace back to Sir Thomas More writing in the time of Henry VIII. He would hardly write that Henry VIII was the son of a usurper!

The detail naming Tyrrell as the killer dates to Thomas More, yes, but there are many older accounts. The Mancini account naming Richard as the killer was written in 1483, the same year the princes went missing (two years before the Battle of Bosworth, so two years before they were murdered, according to those who believe Henry Tudor was to blame). The Croyland Chronicle was written in 1486, and de Commines account was written around 1500. Caspar Weinreich's account was written in the 1490s. More was only 5 at the time, his own book about Richard wasn't published till 1513.

What historians are on record as saying their belief is that Henry Tudor killed the boys?

Oh this is fascinating. I can't help feeling though, that if an assortment of aristos - Howards and Percys? - helped them leave the Tower that they would have kept better track of them for future use.

Slightly OT, but I have never posted on MN or anywhere else before about anything at all history related. Until this thread. Suddenly in my Facebook feed today has come up with an advert for this woman's book, and another book about the Tudors. Absolutely never had this before. Does someone or some algorithm trawl MN threads looking for advert fodder?

Yes Mumsnet has FB trackers on it. FB is listed in the cookies pop up disclosure if you go through the manage consent menu. They have to make money to run the site somehow. However, this might be a personalised ad type of cookie? Which I think you can opt out of? Not sure exactly how you do that but there has to be a way.

Thanks MercanDede, I didn't know that, will check it out. I have actually opted out of the personalised ads. I use DuckDuckGo which is supposed to block cookies and tracking. I Dont get ads relating to other MN forums or threads I post on, so a bit surprised at getting this one (got another tonight on FB). The sinister spider's web of the internet……

He was a big fan of “calculated mercy” (as we called it at A Level). You’ve got to remember that he could easily be seen as a pretender himself, got to keep everyone on side.

@TurquoiseMermaid
Henry VII was in England in late summer/autumn of 1483 which is exactly when they vanished. Again, he snuck over and led a ‘failed invasion’ which could have been a distraction for getting rid of the Princes so that he could safely announce his marriage to their elder sister Christmas of 1483 after a hasty exit back to France. How could Richard III produce the Princes between when they vanished and 1485 when Henry VII finally won the throne to save his reputation when they had vanished and Henry VII’s agents were putting about the rumour that Richard III had had them murdered? Recall Richard III was not even in London or Windsor when the Princes disappeared, he was up north.

“Osteoarchaeologists who have examined his skeleton believe that his scoliosis was mild enough that it wouldn't have even been visible when he was clothed.” I cannot agree. His deformity would have been visible even when clothed. While not technically a “hunchback” as in stooped, he would still have walked with one shoulder much higher than the other and been called one. Hunchback is not a medical term, it is a pejorative often interchangeable with crookback. See photo of his spine(warning sensitive content these are his actual bones)The angle of the scoliosis was 65-85 degrees, severe enough to require surgery. Of course, contemporary paintings and accounts flatter him and as a Prince he probably would have disguised his deformity with padding and clever clothing, but he would not have looked or moved normally. The fact the general public remembered his deformity and mocked him for it over a hundred years after his death would mean it was not only noticeable but memorable.

The Mancini account is what a minor Italian diplomat who happened to be at court in 1483 heard as gossip. The Croyland Chronicle corroborates my point that Henry VII’s agents of his failed invasion were the source of the rumour that the Princes ‘had died a violent death but no one knew how’. De Commines never even visited England and his memoirs are riddled with errors. Edward IV was apparently the bastard son of a Frenchman, Richard III was mentioned as a “murderer of princes” plural which some have read to mean the boys as well as Henry VI, Henry VII was apparently also a bastard too so I guess a 13yr old Margaret Beaufort raped in a forced marriage was precociously sleeping around? It’s recycled court gossip as was the news ship captains told the merchant Wienriech that was assiduously logged in his accounts books. None of these accounts are eyewitness accounts or confessions. They are all court gossip, travelling by word of mouth of which the most contemporary source says originated with Henry VII’s agents in the English court.

Those who think Henry VII is a possible contender do not all think he ordered their murder in 1485, you need to let go of thinking that the person who ordered their murder had to be in the same room, or same city, or even the same country as the Princes to murder them. Plus Henry VII was covertly in Wiltshire in late summer/autumn of 1483 before hightailing it back to France. He also had motive because he needed their sister to be legitimate and if he got her illegitimacy overturned, theirs would be too making him not the rightful king so they had to die for him to be next in line. Their father, Edward IV had also arrested him as a boy in France with intent to bring him to England and execute him, but he escaped by faking stomach cramps and hid in a monastery so he had no love for the boys and probably no qualms about doing to them what their father had been all too prepared to do to him to secure the throne of England. I know it was centuries ago, but the rich and powerful had ways of ordering the murder of people whilst thousands of miles away from them.

Finally, Elizabeth Woodville reconciled with Richard III. If she thought he had killed her sons, would she seriously have left sanctuary? And if Richard III had murdered her sons, then why was it so important to Henry VII to immediately ensure she was shut away in a nunnery with no contact with her daughter, Elizabeth of York his new wife (forced marriage) ? Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville might have had something to say to Elizabeth of York about her husband’s role in the death of her little brothers? Why keep mother and daughter apart?

Odd. Do you have Alexa or anything? Maybe it heard you? It might not be from MN after all as they do respect your cookie consents.

*newnamethanks · 19/11/2023 22:06

It's interesting that neither of the Pretenders were executed by Henry. That's quite significant in an age when commoners lives were cheap.*

All pretenders over the age of 10 were executed, so only Lambert Simnel was pardoned. 10 was considered the age of criminal responsibility for the Tudors, and before anyone says how humanist and modern, it was two years younger than during Anglo-Saxon times during the Dark Ages.

Perkin Warbeck executed 1499
Ralph Wulford executed 1499

No, I don't have Alexa or Siri, for that very reason. It's a mystery, but one I'm not clever enough to solve. I never accept cookies and have all the anti tracking stuff turned on, so it beats me. 🤔 call for Poirot!

That is very persuasive and comprehensive, MercanDede. I think it was more likely to have been Henry. And of course the instigator would use henchmen, all the better if they were far away.