Princes in the Tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search
The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower, 1483 by Sir John Everett Millais, 1878, part of the Royal Holloway picture collection

The Princes in the Tower were Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. The two brothers were the only sons of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville alive at the time of their father's death. Then 12 and 9 years old, they were lodged in the Tower of London by the man appointed to look after them, their uncle, the Lord Protector: Richard, Duke of Gloucester. This was supposed to be in preparation for Edward's coronation as king. However, Richard took the throne for himself and the boys disappeared.

It is unclear what happened to the boys after they disappeared in the tower. It is generally assumed that they were murdered; there are several suspects who had motives for such an action. The murder may have occurred some time around 1483, but apart from their disappearance, the only evidence is circumstantial. Some believe that one, or both, princes were not murdered; some believe that one or both managed to escape. In 1487, Lambert Simnel initially claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, but later claimed to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick. From 1490 until his capture in 1497 Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, who had supposedly escaped to Flanders. Warbeck's claim was supported by some contemporaries (including the aunt of the princes, Margaret of York).

In 1674 workmen at the Tower dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. The bones were found in the ground near the White Tower, which is close to one reported site of their burial. The bones were widely accepted at the time as those of the princes, but this is not proven. King Charles II had the bones buried within Westminster Abbey.

Background[edit]

On 9 April 1483 Edward IV of England died unexpectedly, after an illness lasting around three weeks.[1] At the time Edward's son, the new King Edward V, was at Ludlow, and the dead king's brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was at Middleham in Yorkshire. The news reached Richard around 15 April, although he may have been pre-warned of Edward's illness.[2] It is reported that he then went to York Minster to publicly "pledge his loyalty to his new king".[2] The Croyland Chronicle states that, before his death, Edward IV designated his brother Richard as Lord Protector;[3] however, although a rumour of Richard's designation did circulate, there is no documentation of the King's actual wishes. Edward's request may not have mattered however, "as the precedent of Henry V showed, the council was not bound to follow the wishes of a dead king".[2]

Both Edward V and Richard set out for London, meeting at Stony Stratford on 29 April. The following morning Richard arrested Edward's retinue including the boys' uncle, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, and their half-brother Sir Richard Grey.[4] They were sent to Pontefract Castle in Yorkshire where, on 25 June, they were beheaded.[2] Richard then took possession of the prince himself, prompting Elizabeth Woodville to take her other son, Richard, Duke of York, and her daughters into sanctuary.[2]

Edward V and Richard, Duke of Gloucester arrived in London together. Plans continued for Edward's coronation, but the date was postponed from 4 May to 25 June.[1] On 19 May 1483 Edward was lodged in the Tower of London, the traditional residence of monarchs prior to their coronation.[5] On 16 June he was joined by his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, who was previously in sanctuary.[5] At this point the date of Edward's coronation was indefinitely postponed by their uncle Richard. On Sunday 22 June, a sermon was preached at St Paul's Cross claiming Richard to be the only legitimate heir of the House of York. On 25 June, "a group of lords, knights and gentlemen" petitioned Richard to take the throne.[2] Both princes were subsequently declared illegitimate by Parliament; this was confirmed in 1484 by an Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius. The act stated that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage was invalid because of Edward's pre-contract of marriage with Lady Eleanor Butler.[2] The Duke of Gloucester was crowned King Richard III of England on 3 July.[6] The declaration of the boys' illegitimacy has been described by Rosemary Horrox as an ex post facto justification for Richard's accession.[1]

Disappearance[edit]

Dominic Mancini, an Italian friar who visited England in the 1480s and who was in London in the spring and summer of 1483, recorded that after Richard III seized the throne, Edward and his younger brother Richard were taken into the "inner apartments of the Tower" and then were seen less and less until they disappeared altogether. Mancini records that during this period Edward was regularly visited by a doctor, who reported that Edward, "like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."[7] The Latin reference to "Argentinus medicus", was originally translated as "a Strasbourg doctor"; however, D.E. Rhodes suggests it may actually refer to "Doctor Argentine", whom Rhodes identifies as John Argentine, an English physician who would later serve as provost of King's College, Cambridge, and as doctor to Arthur, Prince of Wales, eldest son of King Henry VII of England (Henry Tudor).[5]

There are reports of the two princes being seen playing in the Tower grounds shortly after Richard joined his brother, but there are no recorded sightings of either of them after the summer of 1483.[8] An attempt to rescue them in late July failed.[1] Their fate remains an enduring mystery.

Many historians believe the princes were murdered, some suggesting that the act may have happened towards the end of summer 1483. Maurice Keen argues that the rebellion against Richard in 1483 initially "aimed to rescue Edward V and his brother from the Tower before it was too late", but that, when the Duke of Buckingham became involved, it shifted to support of Henry Tudor because "Buckingham almost certainly knew that the princes in the Tower were dead."[9] Alison Weir proposes 3 September 1483 as a potential date;[10] however, Weir's work has been criticised for "arriving at a conclusion that depends more on her own imagination than on the uncertain evidence she has so misleadingly presented."[11]

Sir Clements Markham suggests the princes may have been alive as late as July 1484, pointing to the regulations issued by Richard III's household which stated: "the children should be together at one breakfast".[12] James Gairdner, however, argues that it is unclear to whom the phrase "the children" alludes, and that it may not have been a reference to the princes.[13] It may refer to Edward, Earl of Warwick (son of the Duke of Clarence) and Edward IV's two youngest daughters (Catherine and Bridget), all of whom were living under Richard's care at Sheriff Hutton.[2]

Evidence[edit]

King Edward V and the Duke of York in the Tower of London by Paul Delaroche. The theme of innocent children awaiting an uncertain fate was popular amongst 19th-century painters.

Other than their disappearance, there is no direct evidence that the princes were murdered, and "no reliable, well-informed, independent or impartial sources" for the associated events.[2] Nevertheless, following their disappearance, rumours quickly spread that they had been murdered. Only one contemporary narrative account of the boys' time in the tower exists: that of Dominic Mancini. (Mancini's account was not discovered until 1934. Accounts written after the accession of Henry Tudor are often claimed to be biased or influenced by Tudor propaganda.)[2]

Four unidentified bodies have been found which are considered possibly connected with the events of this period: two at the Tower of London and two in Saint George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Those found in the tower were buried within Westminster Abbey, although neither set of remains has been subjected to DNA analysis to positively identify them as the remains of the princes.

Rumours[edit]

Several sources suggest there were rumours of the princes' deaths in the time following their disappearance. Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicle mention rumours circulating by the end of 1483, but do not suggest who was responsible for the princes' deaths.[citation needed] Rumours of murder also spread to France. In January 1484 Guillaume de Rochfort, the Chancellor of France, urged the Estates General to "take warning" from the fate of the princes, as their own king, Charles VIII, was only 13.[13] The early reports, including that of Rochfort, Philippe de Commines (French politician), Caspar Weinreich (contemporary German chronicler) and Jan Allertz (Recorder of Rotterdam), all state that Richard killed the princes before he seized the throne (thus before June 1483).[2] De Commines' Memoirs (c.1500), however, identifies the Duke of Buckingham as the person "who put them to death".[14]

Only Mancini's account is truly contemporary, having been written in London before November 1483.[2] The Croyland Chronicle and de Commines' account were written three and seventeen years later, respectively. Markham, writing long before Mancini's account was discovered, argued that some accounts, including the Croyland Chronicle, may have been authored or heavily influenced by John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury, in order to incriminate Richard III.[12]

Early writers[edit]

Robert Fabyan's Chronicles of London, compiled around 30 years after the princes' disappearance, names Richard as murderer.[15] The History of King Richard III, published c.1513 by Thomas More (a Tudor loyalist and later Chancellor under Henry VIII), identified Sir James Tyrrell (d.1502) as the murderer, acting on Richard's orders. Tyrrell was the loyal servant of Richard III who is said to have confessed to the murder of the princes before his execution for treason in 1502. In his history, More said that the princes were smothered to death in their beds by two agents of Tyrrell (Miles Forrest and John Dighton) and were then buried "at the stayre foote, metely depe in the grounde vnder a great heape of stones", but were later disinterred and buried in a secret place.[16] Curiously, under Henry VIII, a documented Miles Forrest was granted King's favours as found in English historical documents: After the Dissolution, the manor of Morborne, with the house and grange of Ogerston in the same parish, lately the property of the Abbey of Crowland, was granted in 1540, with all appurtenances, to Miles Forrest, bailiff of the Abbot of Peterborough at Warmington in 1535.[17] However this was 50 years after the Battle of Bosworth Field, and 52 years after the deed was allegedly done, leading to suspicion that this Miles Forrest was not the one referred to by More. In 1513, Thomas More named Miles Forrest as a murderer. In 1534, More fell out of favour with Henry VIII when More denied that the king was the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Henry had More beheaded in 1535. In the same year or in 1540 (the above history references both dates), Henry awarded the manor to Miles Forrest, the documented bailiff of the Abbot of Peterborough.

Polydore Vergil, in his Anglica Historia (c.1513), also specifies that Tyrrell was the murderer, stating that he "rode sorrowfully to London" and committed the deed with reluctance, upon Richard III's orders, and that Richard himself spread the rumours of the princes' death in the belief that it would discourage rebellion.[18]

Holinshed's Chronicles, written in the second half of the 16th century, claims that the princes were murdered by Richard III. The chronicles were one of the main sources used by William Shakespeare for his play Richard III, which also portrays Richard as the murderer. A. J. Pollard believes that the chronicle's account reflected the contemporary "standard and accepted account", but that by the time it was written "propaganda had been transformed into historical fact".[2]

Bodies[edit]

Tower of London[edit]

In 1674, some workmen remodelling the Tower of London dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. The bones were found buried 10 ft under the staircase leading to the chapel of the White Tower. They were not the first children's skeletons found within the tower; the bones of two children had previously found "in an old chamber that had been walled up", which Pollard suggests could have equally been those of the princes.[2] The reason the bones were attributed to the princes was because the location partially matched that given by More. However More also stated that they were later moved to a "better place",[19] which does not match with the bones discovered. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them"; the velvet could indicate that the bodies were those of aristocrats.[20] Four years after their discovery,[2] the bones were placed in an urn and, on the orders of King Charles II, interred in Westminster Abbey, in the wall of the Henry VII Lady Chapel. A monument designed by Christopher Wren marks the resting-place of the putative princes.[21]

The bones were removed and examined in 1933, by the archivist of Westminster Abbey, Lawrence Tanner; a leading anatomist, Professor William Wright; and the president of the Dental Association, George Northcroft. By measuring certain bones and teeth, they concluded the bones belonged to two children around the correct ages for the princes.[2] The bones were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken by the original workmen.[22][23] The examination has been criticised, on the grounds that it was conducted under the presumption that the bones were those of the princes and concentrated only on whether the bones showed evidence of suffocation. Thus no attempt was even made to determine whether the bones were male or female.[2]

No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis (if DNA could be obtained) has not been attempted. A petition was started on the British Government's "e-petition" website requesting that the bones be DNA tested but closed months before its expected close date. If it had received 100,000 signatories a parliamentary debate would have been triggered.[24] However, Pollard points out that even if modern DNA and carbon-dating proved the bones belonged to the princes, it would not prove who or what killed them.[2]

St George's Chapel[edit]

In 1789, workmen carrying out repairs in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, discovering in the process what appeared to be a small adjoining vault. This vault was found to contain the coffins of two unidentified children. However, no inspection or examination was carried out and the tomb was resealed. The tomb was inscribed with the names of two of Edward IV's children: George, 1st Duke of Bedford who had died at the age of 2, and Mary of York who had died at the age of 14; both had predeceased the King.[25][26][27] During the excavation for the royal tomb house for King George III under the Wolsey tomb-house in 1810–13 two lead coffins clearly labelled as George Plantagenet and Mary Plantagenet were discovered and moved into the adjoining vault of Edward IV's but at the time no effort was made to identify the two lead coffins already in the vault.[28]

In the late 1990s, work was being carried out near and around Edward IV's tomb in St George's Chapel; the floor area was excavated to replace an old boiler and also to add a new repository for the remains of future Deans and Canons of Windsor. A request was forwarded to the Dean and Canons of Windsor to consider a possible examination of the two vaults either by fibre-optic camera or, if possible, a reexamination of the two unidentified lead coffins in the tomb also housing the lead coffins of two of Edward IV's children that were discovered during the building of the Royal Tomb for King George III (1810–13) and placed in the adjoining vault at that time. Royal consent would be necessary to open any royal tomb, so it was felt best to leave the medieval mystery unsolved for at least the next few generations.[29] The 2012 Leicester archaeological dig has prompted renewed interest in re-excavating the skeletons of the "two princes", but Queen Elizabeth II has not granted the approval required for any such testing of an interred royal.[30]

Theories[edit]

The children of Edward IV of England by Pedro Américo

The absence of hard evidence of what happened to the Princes has led to a number of theories being put forward. The most common theory is that they were murdered close to the time that they disappeared, and among historians and authors who accept the murder theory, the most common explanation is that they were murdered by Richard.[31]

Richard III[edit]

Richard is the likeliest candidate for the disappearance of the princes for a number of reasons. Although the princes had been eliminated from the succession, Richard III's hold on the monarchy was very insecure due to the way in which he had attained the crown, leading to a backlash against him by the Yorkist establishment.[32] An attempt had already been made to rescue them and restore Edward to the throne, clear evidence that the existence of the princes would remain a threat as long as they were alive. The boys could have been used by Richard's enemies as figureheads for rebellion.[33] Rumours of their death were in circulation by late 1483, but Richard never attempted to prove that they were alive by having them seen in public, which strongly suggests that they were dead by then. However he did not remain silent on the matter. Raphael Holinshed, in his Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, written in 1577, reports that 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."[34] Richard also failed to open any investigation into the matter, which would have been in his interest if he was not responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

Richard was away from court on a progression through the Yorkist heartlands at the time the princes disappeared, and would have been unable to murder them in person.[35] However, they were under guard in the Tower of London, which was controlled by his men, and access to them was strictly limited by his instructions.[36] He could therefore have despatched one of his retainers to the murder the princes on his behalf, but it is unlikely they could have been murdered without his knowledge.[36] This is the version put forward by More and Polydore Vergil, who both name James Tyrrell as the murderer. Tyrrell was an English knight who fought for the House of York on many occasions. Tyrrell was arrested by Henry VII's forces in 1502 for supporting another Yorkist claimant to the throne. Shortly before his execution, Tyrrell is said by Thomas More to have admitted, under torture, to having murdered the princes at the behest of Richard III.[37] The only record of this is the writing of Thomas More, who wrote that, during his examination, Tyrrell made his confession as to the murders, saying that Richard III ordered their deaths. He also implicated two other men; despite further questioning, however, he was unable to say where the bodies were, claiming that Brackenbury had moved them.[38] William Shakespeare portrays him as the culprit, sought out by Richard after Buckingham demurs. This version of events is accepted by Alison Weir [39] and Hicks notes that his successful career and rapid promotion after 1483 'is consistent with his alleged murder of the princes'.[40] However, the only record of Tyrrell's confession is through More, and "no actual confession has ever been found". Pollard casts doubts on the accuracy of More's accounts, suggesting it was "an elaboration of one of several circulating accounts"; however, he does not discount the possibility of it being "just his own invention", pointing to the "clear similarities to the stories of the Babes in the Wood".[2] Clements Markham suggests that More's account was actually written by Archbishop Morton and that Tyrrell was induced to do the deed by Henry VII between June 16 and July 16, 1486, the dates of two general pardons that he received from the king.[41]

Richard's guilt was widely accepted by contemporaries. George Cely, Dominic Mancini, John Rous, the Crowland Chronicler and the London Chronicle all noted the disappearance of the Princes, and all bar Mancini (who noted that he had no knowledge of what had happened) repeated rumours naming Richard as the murderer.[42] Guillaume de Rochefort, Chancellor of France, named Richard as the murderer to the Estates General at Tours in January 1484[43] It also appears to have been the belief of Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters.[44] One possible motive for Elizabeth Woodville subsequently making her peace with Richard and bringing her daughters out of sanctuary could be that Richard had to swear a solemn oath, before witnesses, to protect and provide for her surviving children, which made it much less likely they could be quietly murdered as it was believed their brothers had been.[45][46][47]

In line with this contemporary opinion many modern historians, including David Starkey,[31] Michael Hicks,[48] Helen Castor[49] and A. J. Pollard [50] do regard Richard himself as the most likely culprit. There was no formal accusation against Richard III on the matter; the Bill of Attainder brought by Henry VII made no definitive mention of the Princes in the Tower, but it did accuse Richard of "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".[51][52] The "shedding of infant's blood" may be an accusation of the Princes' murder. Hicks speculated that it was a reference to speeches made in Parliament condemning the murder of the princes, which suggested that Richard's guilt had become common knowledge, or at least common wisdom.[35]

Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham[edit]

The plausibility of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, Richard's right-hand man, as a suspect depends on the princes having already been dead by the time he was executed in November 1483. It has been suggested that Buckingham had several potential motives.[53] As a descendant of Edward III, through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, Buckingham may have hoped to accede to the throne himself in due course; alternatively, he may have been acting on behalf of a third party.

Some, notably Paul Murray Kendall,[53] regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out; Weir takes this as a sign that Richard had murdered the princes without Buckingham's knowledge and Buckingham had been shocked by it.[54] A contemporary Portuguese document suggests Buckingham as the guilty party, stating "...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."[55] A document dated some decades after the disappearance was found within the archives of the College of Arms in London in 1980; this stated that the murder "be the vise of the Duke of Buckingham".[56]

He is the only person to be named as responsible in a contemporary chronicle other than Richard himself. However, for two reasons he is unlikely to have acted alone. First of all, if he were guilty of acting without Richard's orders it is extremely surprising that Richard did not lay the blame for the princes' murder on Buckingham after Buckingham was disgraced and executed, despite the fact that Richard could potentially have cleared his own name by doing so.[57] Second, it is likely he would have required Richard's help to gain access to the princes, under close guard in the Tower of London,[36] although Kendall argued as Constable of England, he might have been exempt from this ruling.[58] As a result, although it is extremely possible that he was implicated in the decision to murder them, the hypothesis that he acted without Richard's knowledge is not widely accepted by historians.[57][59] This theory formed the basis of Sharon Penman's historical novel, The Sunne in Splendour.[60]

Henry VII[edit]

Henry VII (Henry Tudor) following his seizure of the crown, executed some of the rival claimants to the throne.[61] Among those executed was John of Gloucester, illegitimate son of Richard III.[12] Henry was out of the country between the princes' disappearance and August 1485, thus his only opportunity to murder them would have been after his accession in 1485. Pollard suggests Henry (or those acting on his orders) is "the only plausible alternative to Richard III."[2]

The year after becoming king, Henry married the princes' eldest sister, Elizabeth of York, to reinforce his claim to the throne. Not wanting the legitimacy of his wife or her claim as heiress of Edward IV called into question, prior to the marriage he had repealed the Titulus Regius which had previously declared the princes (and Elizabeth) illegitimate.[12] Markham suggests the princes were executed under Henry's orders between the 16 June and 16 July 1486, claiming that it was only after this date that orders went out to circulate the story that Richard had killed the princes,[12] and that the princes' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, knew that this story was "false", and so Henry had to have her "silenced". Markham suggests this was the motivation behind Henry's decision, in February 1487, to confiscate all of Elizabeth's "lands and possessions", and have her confined to Bermondsey Nunnery, "where she died six years afterwards".[12] However Arlene Okerlund suggest that her retirement to the nunnery was her own decision,[62] whilst Michael Bennett and Timothy Elston suggests the move was precautionary, precipitated by Lambert Simnel's claim to be her son Richard.[63] Pollard calls Markham's theory "highly speculative", and states that Henry's silence over the princes was more likely "political calculation than personal guilt".[64] Henry was also never accused of the murder by any contemporary, not even by his enemies, which he likely would have been had contemporaries thought there was any possibility of his guilt.[36]

Other suspects[edit]

Some writers have also accused John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother, and Jane Shore (Edward IV's mistress). Pollard writes of these theories: "None deserve serious consideration. The problem with all these accusations is that they beg the question of access to the Tower without Richard's knowledge and overlook the fact that Richard was responsible for the safekeeping of his nephews".[65] The Beaufort theory has more recently been supported by Philippa Gregory and forms the plot of her Cousins War novels, as well as her BBC documentary series 'The Real White Queen and her Rivals'.[66] but is not supported by any evidence other than a speculative one of possible motive.[36]

Other claims[edit]

Historian David Baldwin suggests that contemporaries believed Edward had died (either of an illness or as the result of attempts to cure him) and that Richard was still alive.[67] Baldwin argues that it is "impossible" that no one knew what happened to the Princes after they entered the tower;[67] he believes Richard III and Henry VII, leading courtiers and their mother would all have known the boys' whereabouts and welfare.[67] Baldwin theorises that both princes may have survived; if both boys had died, "the matter could have been discussed and the culprit blamed openly", but neither Richard III nor Henry VII did so.[67] He argues that, if the princes were alive, the kings could not declare them dead as too many would know the truth; but neither could they pronounce the princes alive, as the boys' claim to the throne was better than their own.[67]

During the reign of Henry VII, two individuals claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, who had somehow escaped death. Lambert Simnel initially claimed to be Richard, before changing his story and claiming to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick.[68]

Perkin Warbeck later claimed to be Richard, appearing in Ireland and calling himself king Richard IV.[69] Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, formally recognised Warbeck as Richard. Margaret, Richard III's sister, an unrelenting opponent of Henry VII, had previously recognised Simnel as Warwick.[69] Warbeck was also accepted as Richard by James IV of Scotland. After a failed attempt to invade England he was captured. He retracted his claims, was imprisoned and later executed. Many modern historians believe he was an imposter, whose supporters accepted his claim for political reasons.[69]

The fact that two persons claimed to be Richard led the 18th century writer Horace Walpole to argue that Richard had in fact escaped death, and that Warbeck genuinely was Richard,[70] a view also supported by Malcolm Laing. Walpole however later retracted his views and stated that he now believed the princes to have been murdered by Richard to secure his hold on the crown.[71] In more recent times the theory that Warbeck was Richard has been endorsed by Annette Carson, a journalist and Ricardian. She suggested that Richard smuggled the princes abroad to the custody of their aunt, the Duchess of Burgundy, and were raised there under false identities.[72] However, this would not explain why Richard never produced them or said what had happened to them to refute the rumours he had murdered them.

Pollard sums up the case against such theories by stating 'As an assumption this [the idea that the princes were still alive in 1485] is less tenable than the assumption they were dead by then.'.[73]

The impact[edit]

The contemporary political reality of the disappearance of the princes, whatever happened to them, is that they were believed to have been murdered and Richard was blamed for their murders.[74] Even if he had not been directly responsible for their deaths, the fact that he had deposed them and kept them under tight guard made him responsible for their welfare in the eyes of contemporaries, and the belief that they had been murdered made him guilty via negligence if not directly.[75] An initial uprising in September 1483, aimed at deposing Richard and restoring Edward V to the throne, was not stopped by rumours of Edward's murder[76] - instead, the rebels rallied around Henry Tudor as a potential alternative candidate, who was, as Horrox notes, 'an inconceivable choice if Edward V and his brother were thought to be still available.'[1] The fact that the majority of the rebels were wealthy and powerful southern noblemen, loyal to Edward IV, suggests a degree of revulsion against Richard's usurpation of the throne:[77] their willingness to fight on under an implausible alternative candidate suggests that they regarded anyone as preferable to Richard as King due to his usurpation and the murder of his nephews.[78] Hicks speculated that these men may have been 'appalled by the character of the regime...shocked by Richard's crimes.'[79] Their defection severely weakened Richard, who had to impose his supporters among the northern lords as officeholders in the southern counties to maintain order, in itself a very unpopular act that further damaged his reputation.[1] In Pollard's words, the disappearance of the princes led to a chain of events that 'seriously handicapped Richard's efforts to secure himself on the throne he had usurped.'[80]

In popular culture[edit]

Literature[edit]

Fiction[edit]

Non-fiction[edit]

Television[edit]

Other media[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Horrox, Rosemary (2004). "Edward IV of England". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 25 August 2013. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Pollard, A.J. (1991). Richard III and the princes in the tower. Alan Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0862996600. 
  3. ^ The Crowland Chronicle Continuations, 1459–1486, Nicholas Pronay and John Cox (eds.), (Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, Gloucester: 1986), p.153.
  4. ^ Chalmers' Biography, vol. 32, p. 351
  5. ^ a b c Rhodes, D.E. (April 1962). "The Princes in the Tower and Their Doctor". The English Historical Review (Oxford University Press) 77 (303): 304–306. doi:10.1093/ehr/lxxvii.ccciii.304. 
  6. ^ Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton, The Coronation of Richard III: the Extant Documents (Palgrave Macmillan, 1984)
  7. ^ "The Usurpation of Richard the Third", Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium libellus; Translated to English by C.A.J. Armstrong (London, 1936)
  8. ^ R. F. Walker, "Princes in the Tower", in S. H. Steinberg et al, A New Dictionary of British History, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1963, p.286.
  9. ^ M. H. Keen, England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History, Routledge: New York, 2003, p.388.
  10. ^ Alison Weir, The Princes of the Tower (p. 157)
  11. ^ Wood, Charles T (April 1995). "Review: Richard III: A Medieval Kingship. by John Gillingham; The Princes in the Tower. by Alison Weir". Speculum (Cambridge University Press: Medieval Academy of America) 70 (2): 371–372. doi:10.2307/2864918. 
  12. ^ a b c d e f Markham, Sir Clement Robert (April 1891). "Richard III: A Doubtful Verdict Reviewed". The English Historical Review (Oxford University Press) 6 (22): 250–283. 
  13. ^ a b Gairdner, James (July 1891). "Did Henry VII Murder the Princes?". The English Historical Review (Oxford University Press) 6 (23): 444–464. 
  14. ^ Philippe de Commines, Memoirs: the Reign of Louis XI, 1461–83, Translated by Michael Jones (1972), pp.354, 396-7.
  15. ^ Fabyan, Robert (1902 first published 1516). Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, ed. Chronicles of London. Ocford: Clarendon Press. 
  16. ^ The History of King Richard the Third, by Sir Thomas More.
  17. ^ "Parishes - Morborne | A History of the County of Huntingdon: Volume 3 (pp. 188-190)". British-history.ac.uk. 2003-06-22. Retrieved 2013-02-07. 
  18. ^ Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia 1846 edition, p. 188-9
  19. ^ Sir Thomas More, The History of King Richard II, R.S. Sylvester (ed.), (Newhaven: 1976), p.88
  20. ^ Weir, Alison. The Princes in the Tower. 1992, Random House, ISBN 9780345391780, p. 252-3.
  21. ^ John Steane, The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy (Routledge, 1993), page 65
  22. ^ Weir, p. 257
  23. ^ 'Examination on the alleged murder of the Princes', Wordpress: Richard III Society - American Branch
  24. ^ Richard III and the Princes - e-petitions
  25. ^ Chapter Records XXIII to XXVI, The Chapter Library, St. George's Chapel, Windsor (Permission required)
  26. ^ William St. John Hope: "Windsor Castle: An Architectural History", pages 418-419. (1913).
  27. ^ Vetusta Monumenta, Volume III, page 4 (1789).
  28. ^ Lysons & Lysons, Magna Britannia, 1812 supplement p. 471. Also in Britton's Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, 1812 page 45. The move to Edward IV's crypt mentioned in Samuel Lewis, "A Topographical Dictionary of Great Britain" 1831.
  29. ^ Art Ramirez, "A Medieval Mystery", Ricardian Bulletin, September 2001.
  30. ^ Robert McCrum (15 September 2012). "Richard III, the great villain of English history, is due a makeover". The Observer (London: Guardian). Retrieved 2013-02-07. 
  31. ^ a b "The Society - History". Richardiii.net. 2006-11-30. Retrieved 2010-05-16. 
  32. ^ Hicks, Michael (2003). Richard III (Revised ed.). Stroud: History Press. pp. 209–210. 
  33. ^ Hicks, Michael (2003). Richard III (Revised ed.). Stroud: History Press. p. 210. 
  34. ^ Raphael Holinshed, "Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland ", 1577, p.746, commencing on line 48.
  35. ^ a b Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) p 210
  36. ^ a b c d e Weir, Alison (2013). Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen. London: Jonathan Cape. p. 104. 
  37. ^ Rosemary Horrox, ‘Tyrell, Sir James (c.1455–1502)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008, accessed 27 Aug 2013 (subscription required)
  38. ^ Thomas More, The History of King Richard the Third. Accessed 20 September 2013
  39. ^ The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir (1992) ISBN 978-0-345-39178-0 pp 156-166
  40. ^ Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) p 189
  41. ^ Markham 1906, p. 270
  42. ^ Pollard 121-122
  43. ^ Pollard 122
  44. ^ Weir, Alison (2013). Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen. London: Jonathan Cape. p. 105. 
  45. ^ Cheetham, Antony (1972). The Life and Times of Richard III. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. p. 151. 
  46. ^ Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) pp 223-224
  47. ^ Weir, Alison (2013). Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 112–114. 
  48. ^ Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) ISBN 978-0-7524-2589-4
  49. ^ Helen Castor, She-Wolves: the Women who Ruled England before Elizabeth (Faber, 2010), ISBN 978-0-571-23706-7, p402
  50. ^ Pollard p 135
  51. ^ James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps, Letters of the Kings of England, Vol. 1 (1846), p.161.
  52. ^ Rotuli Parliamentorum, J. Strachey (ed.), VI, (1777), p.276
  53. ^ a b Kendall, Paul Murray (1955). Richard III. New York: Norton. pp. 487–489. 
  54. ^ Weir, Alison (2008). The Princes in the Tower. London: Vintage. pp. 151–152. 
  55. ^ Alvaro Lopes de Chaves (ref: Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, Livro de Apontamentos (1438–1489), (Codice 443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional - Casa da Moeda, Lisboa, 1983), private secretary to the Portuguese King Alfonso V.
  56. ^ College of Arms Collection, Queen Victoria Street, London, manuscript MS 2M6. The entire document containing the reference consists of 126 folios. It appears to have belonged to Christopher Barker whilst he was Suffolk Herald (1514–22), since his name, title, and a sketch of his maternal arms appear on folio. io6r. of the MS.
  57. ^ a b Cheetham, Antony (1972). The Life and Times of Richard III. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. p. 148. 
  58. ^ Kendall, Paul Murray (1955). Richard III. New York: Norton. p. 488. 
  59. ^ Pollard 123-124
  60. ^ Penman, Sharon (1983). The Sunne in Splendour. London: Macmillan. pp. 884–885. 
  61. ^ Cawthorne, Nigel. Kings and Queens of England. New York: Metro Books, 2010. Print. p. 89.
  62. ^ Arlene Okerlund, Elizabeth: England's Slandered Queen. Stroud: Tempus, 2006, 245.
  63. ^ Bennett, Michael, Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1987, pp.42; 51; Elston, Timothy, "Widowed Princess or Neglected Queen" in Levin & Bucholz (eds), Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England, University of Nebraska Press, 2009, p.19.
  64. ^ Pollard p 130
  65. ^ Pollard p 127
  66. ^ Gregory, Philippa. "Philippa Gregory tells the true story behind The White Queen". Radio Times. The Radio Times (BBC). Retrieved 2 June 2014. 
  67. ^ a b c d e Baldwin, David. "The White Queen - What happened to the Princes in the Tower?". BBC History. Retrieved 18 August 2013. 
  68. ^ David Hume, The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Cæsar to the revolution in 1688 (1812), p323-324
  69. ^ a b c Wagner, John, Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses, ABC-CLIO, 2001, p.289.
  70. ^ Sabor, Peter (ed), Horace Walpole: The Critical Heritage, Routledge, 1987, p.124.
  71. ^ Pollard 214-216
  72. ^ Carson, Annette (2013). Richard III: The Maligned King (second ed.). Stroud: The History Press. pp. 172–174. 
  73. ^ Pollard p. 132
  74. ^ Pollard pp. 137-139
  75. ^ Pollard p 138
  76. ^ Hicks p. 211-212
  77. ^ Hicks p 211
  78. ^ Hicks p. 212
  79. ^ Hicks pp. 228
  80. ^ Pollard p. 139
  81. ^ The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewett and Mark Redhead, published by Alan Sutton in 1984, ISBN 0-86299-198-6
  82. ^ Beaton, Kate. "Party Time with Richard III", Hark! A Vagrant. Accessed 28 April 2012.
  83. ^ http://www.fulltable.com/VTS/t/ta/imp/10.jpg
  84. ^ Houses of Wax: Madame Tussaud's- Princes in the Tower