The Princes in the Tower — Prologue — Crime Library
Tower
Some time in the summer or early fall of 1483, 12-year-old Edward V and his 10-year-old brother, Richard of York, disappeared from public view. Their father, King Edward IV, had died in April, and they had been lodged in the Tower of London since the end of May by their Uncle Richard. In mid-July, Richard had his nephews declared illegitimate, which meant that neither boy would be able to become king, and arranged to have himself crowned Richard III. Two years later, in August, 1485, Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, and Henry Tudor, the victor, became Henry VII.
What happened to the princes? Over the next 500 years, two camps emerged. The first, the traditionalists, were firm in their belief that Richard III had ordered the murders of his nephews. The second, the revisionists, maintained that Richard IIIs reputation had been besmirched by his successor, Henry Tudor, the first of the Tudor kings and father of Henry VIII.
by Josephine Tey
Josephine Tey, in her classic mystery novel The Daughter of Time, represents the best of the Revisionists artistic treatment of the story. The pre-eminent artistic rendering of the mystery for the Traditionalists is, of course, Shakespeares Richard III. Since Ms. Teys novel, many treatments and interpretations have been published that, if anything, deepen the mystery.
Other than the account of Sir Thomas More, often repeated and embellished by other 16th century writers, nothing was known of the fate of the princes. In 1674, 191 years after their disappearance, an interesting discovery was made in the Tower of London. Assembling the known facts together, one might imagine that the discovery occurred something like this:
July, 1674
The clanging of picks resounded through the White Tower. The stairs leading up to the Chapel of St. John the Evangelist had been crumbling for a number of years, and the king had ordered its demolition and replacement. The large broken stones shattered under the workmens picks, and a large pile of rubble had formed in the open area leading to the steps. The workmen had reached the floor of the basement and had been surprised to find a layer of loose stones, rather than a stone floor, as they had anticipated.
After they had removed about a 10-foot layer of stones, they looked at the top of a wooden chest. Clearing away the last of the debris, one of them carefully raised the lid and reached in.
(Scottish National Photo Gallery)
He held up a bone. It was an arm bone. An hour later, the workmen had collected the bones of two humans.
Charles II, king at that time, ordered that the bones be examined by the royal surgeon. who was afterwards satisfied that they were the remains of the two princes, Edward V and his brother.
Four years later, after having lain in a safe place in the Chapel of the White Tower, the bones were placed in a small marble casket and given a place of honor in Westminster Abbey. At the service, the Archbishop of London said the prayers, and Charles II spoke.
It is right and meet that we commend the bones of these young princes to a place of final rest. Their fates at the order of Richard III grieves us, and though almost two centuries have passed, the vile deeds of that villain shall neer be forgotten. The King crossed himself, turned, and led the small funeral procession out of Westminster Abbey.
(CORBIS)
Two and a half centuries after the burial ceremony in Westminster Abbey, King George V in 1933, annoyed by the mounting pressure from supporters of Richard III, gave his approval for the examination of the bones in the white marble coffin by reputable scientists. This inquest, intended to resolve the question of whether or not the princes had been found in 1674, may very well have been similar to this hypothetical account:
September, 1933
Lawrence E, Tanner, MD, OBE, and Keeper of the Monuments of Westminster Abbey, had known William Wright, President of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain, for over 20 years. He had met Bill Wright under unfortunate circumstances, when Wright, the pre-eminent dental surgeon of Harley Street, had extracted his wisdom teeth. Tanner had never forgiven him for that painful experience, even though the two met often at conferences and dinners, and had been unfailingly polite to one another.
Now, they were thrown together, directed by the king, George V, and the Home Secretary, to perform an examination of the bones of the supposed princes, Edward V and Richard of York. Tanner did not look forward to working with Wright, a hearty fellow who got on his nerves. But, duty called.
Tanner had set them up in a room in the chapter house. A long oak refectory table had been covered with sheets, and the contents of the Christopher Wren marble coffin had been spread on the table. The bones, brown with 450 years of oxidation, were arranged by length.
Quite a few that dont belong here, wouldnt you say, Tanner? What dyou think? Pig bones? Sheep?
A bit of everything, Id say. Scraps from the kitchen. Pork, sheep, cattle. Some scullery lad must have had a rubbish heap under those stairs, and when the chest was found, the workmen must have thrown every bone they found into it. Quite a mess. Tanner lit his pipe.
Well, lets get started, shall we? Why dont you separate out the animal bones, and Ill start lining up the young lads. It was just as Tanner thought; Wright would use him as an assistant.
However, it was Tanner who made the final measurements. After a week of careful sorting and measuring, they were ready to record. Wright was poised with pen and paper as Tanner dictated. So what do we have? Tanner said. Two pre-pubertal skeletons of undetermined gender
Wright interrupted. Most likely male, though, wouldnt you say?
Tanner frowned. but most likely male. One, four feet ten inches tall, the other just under four feet seven inches — say, four feet six and one half inches tall. Only a partial skull for the younger. Both have some bones missing, phalanges, metacarpals.
Wright handed the notebook to Tanner. Now, for the jaws and dentition. The elder looks like he suffered from osteomyelitis — quite extensive. Must have been dreadfully painful. They are no doubt related, as based on the presence of hypodontia — both have permanent teeth missing. Good thing the younger boys skull was the lower half. What would you estimate their ages, Tanner?
Well, using your tooth measurements, Id say the elder was 12 to 13 years old, the younger — its a little more difficult to tell — say, nine to 11 years old.
That pretty well takes it, then, doesnt it? Edward was 12 years, 10 months old in September, 1483, and Richard was what?
I believe just 10 years old. Yes, I have no doubts. You agree, Wright?
Indeed I do. Too many coincidences not to be the princes. Found in the right place — according to Thomas More. Related, clearly. Right ages. Yes, I have no doubts. Besides, this stain on the skull of the elder. Blood stain, consistent with suffocation. No, no doubt about it, as far as Im concerned.
I agree. Well, lets get these boys back in their coffin. This time, well leave out the animal bones.
In fact, Tanner and Wright did not resolve the question to the satisfaction of some. After all, it is argued, Tanner and Wright assumed from the beginning that the bones in the casket were those of the princes. They merely confirmed their assumption. No radio-carbon dating (not available at the time) was done. Could these have been the bones of some children of an earlier era, perhaps Roman? Despite the urging of Richards present-day supporters, the bones have not been reexamined.
Where do we get our conception of Richard III, villain and murderer of children? There is no more profound influence on how we view Richard than the famous play by William Shakespeare. He, of course, relied on histories that had been written in the first half of the 16th century. These, most prominently by Hollinshed and Hall, had been based on Thomas Mores biography of Richard. Shakespeare had already achieved a certain amount of success with the London theatre public with his three plays on Henry VI, the last part of which has an appearance by Richard III, then known as Richard Gloucester. Shakespeare was, after all, a man of the theatre and not an historian. It is interesting to speculate on how Shakespeare interpreted these sources, and created the play that has had so much influence over the last 400 years.
It would be fascinating to have been present at the first rehearsal of Richard III, probably held in mid-1592. What were Shakespeares instructions to his leading actor, Richard Burbage? Did he direct Burbage to act Richard as an attractive villain, so that he was as much devilish as evil? Whatever the original interpretation of the role, Shakespeare gives the character of Richard lines that unmistakably reveal his villainous motives.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plans have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the King
In deadly hate the one against the other.
Shakespeares Richard is a new kind of complex villain, one who is adept at plotting, prone to irony, and just as blood-thirsty as the villains who came before him. But, he is a villain nonetheless.
The Three Kings:
In order to understand the context of the murder of the princes, its helpful to know something about the politics of the second half of the 15th century, particularly about the three kings that ruled England at that time. The princes, after all, were pawns in the elaborate game of power seeking, and the players — for the most part — were those who wanted to be king. Certainly, the personalities of Edward IV, his younger brother Richard III, and the man who overthrew Richard, Henry VII, are central to the story.
Edward IV (reigned from 1460 to 1483): the father of the two young princes.
his reign (National Archives)
Even before he assumed the throne, Edward of York had a reputation as something of a rake. He stood six feet three and a half inches tall, fully a half foot taller than the average Englishman of the age, and was, by all reports, remarkably handsome. Edward did not restrain his interest in women, and enjoyed numerous liaisons. Marriage to Elizabeth Woodville did not interfere with his sexual adventures. A handsome, affable, charming man was, it appears, forgiven his appetites. He was, at the beginning of his reign, a fair and benign ruler, and well liked by his subjects.
Pleasant as Edward was, it didnt stop him from doing whatever was necessary to secure his reign. After defeating the forces of Henry VI, Edward had Henrys heir, the young Prince of Wales, murdered. Allegedly, even Henry VI, a simple-minded and ineffectual old man who was imprisoned in the Tower, may have also been murdered at Edwards request.
Another threat to Edward was the unpredictable loyalty of his other brother, George, Duke of Clarence, who allied himself with Henry VIs wife in her attempt to overthrow Edward. Younger brother Richard played the role of peacemaker in reconciling his two older brothers, but George remained troublesome, eventually giving Edward no choice but to execute him for treason. Interestingly, George and Richard had married sisters. The older of the Neville girls, Isobel, married George, and the younger, Anne married Richard. Family connections aside, George had to go, and so he met the usual fate of 15th century traitors.
These relationships — the execution of George, Duke of Clarence, and the marriage of Richard to Anne Neville — are changed quite dramatically in Shakespeares play. According to Shakespeare, George, a gentle soul slandered by Richard, is drowned in a butt of malmsey. Most likely, the reference to this comes from his love of wine, and the drowning in malmsey is a metaphor for his drunkenness leading to his eventual death. The fascinating courtship of Anne by Richard, her husbands (Henry VIs heir, the Prince of Wales) corpse between them, is pure invention, since Anne never met the Prince of Wales, her husband, and was still little more than a child when Richard courted and married her.
his reign (National Archive)
During his reign, Edward continued to indulge himself. One of his mistresses, procured for him by his loyal aide, Lord Hastings, was Jane Shore. As he tired of her, he turned her over to Hastings. His appetites included not only women, but food and drink as well, so that by the time of his death at the age of 44, he was grossly fat.
Richard had been a loyal youngest brother. At the age of 18, he performed admirably at the Battle of Tewksbury against the forces of Henry VI, and for a number of years thereafter governed the northern counties for Edward with skill.
Edward’s queen and mother
of the princes (National Archives)
Edward had married Elizabeth Woodville secretly, over the objections of his mother, who found Elizabeth, a widow, an unsuitable candidate for a queen. In addition to her unsuitability, she brought with her a group of relatives, brothers and sons, who were ambitious and grasping. Edward, as long as he was left to his own pleasures, did not seem to mind the machinations of his in-laws and stepsons. It was one of these pleasures that eventually kept his own son from inheriting his throne.
One of the ecclesiastical laws of the time was that the promise of a marriage carried the legal force of an actual marriage. Edward evidently used the promise of marriage as a means to entice women into his bed, and by all accounts he used the device successfully. However, with at least one of these promises, to Eleanor Butler, he made the mistake of promising it in the presence of a bishop, Bishop Stillington. This was several years before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (who probably had the same promise made to her, but made Edward keep it). The net effect of this promise to Eleanor Butler was, years later, to invalidate his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, rendering his children from that marriage illegitimate, and hence ineligible to inherit the throne.
In the meantime, throughout the reign of Edward IV, younger brother Richard was a loyal soldier and administrator. He was so trusted by his older brother that he, Richard of Gloucester, was named in Edwards will as protector, the guardian of Edwards oldest son and heir. Protectors ruled as king until the designated heir reached majority, which had varied throughout the centuries, but was generally about 14 years of age. England had experienced political turmoil in the past when the heir had not yet reached majority, and the naming of a protector was a reasonable practice.
Richard III
Richard of Gloucester was considerably different from his older brother. What he actually looked like is in dispute. He was described as almost as handsome as the charismatic Edward, but smaller and slighter. Others, including Thomas More, describe him as deformed, with a withered arm and a hunched back. (Almost every actor who has portrayed Richard plays him as deformed. The most recent production of note, starring Kenneth Branagh as Richard, begins the play with Richard delivering his famous opening soliloquy on a rack, dressed only in underpants, undergoing a physical torture evidently intended to straighten his deformed body. A famous production starring Antony Sher presents Richard as a malevolent spider, skittering across the stage on insect-leg-like crutches.) Portraits picture him with one shoulder slightly higher than the other, but without any other noticeable deformity. Even the portraits are in dispute, since two of the three principal ones have been retouched to either accentuate the raised shoulder, or to paint it out. It is important to note that two contemporary reporters of the reign of Richard III do not mention any physical deformity, and both observers certainly saw him at one time or another. The several reports of Richards prowess in battle deny the assertion that Richard was physically deformed.
One consistent feature is his serious, almost melancholy expression. This mesmerizing face is the key element that prompts novelist Josephine Teys character, a bored, bedridden, detective, to become interested in the case of Richard III and the two princes.
Other contrasts with his brother were made by various authors. Richard was more puritanical than his sybaritic brother, and, at least with respect to Edward IVs later years, a benign and efficient ruler. These admirable traits — courage, benevolence, administrative and legislative wisdom — are in contrast to the historical characterization of Richard III as a remorseless villain. Still, like most of the rulers of medieval Europe, there is no question that he was ruthless. Whether he murdered his nephews or not, he certainly executed a number of political opponents during his brief reign. Some of these were dispatched because of actual rebellion, but others were killed because they simply posed a threat to his throne.
It is not surprising that the Tudor appraisal of Richard included charges of more subtle murders. One particular rumor was that Richard poisoned his wife Anne, who died in 1484. His motive was, supposedly, two-fold: First, Richard and Annes son had died, and Richard had no direct heir. Another marriage might have provided him with a male heir. Second, a solution to this was for Richard to marry his niece, Elizabeth York in order to strengthen his hold on the throne and thwart the plans of Henry Tudor. (This eldest daughter of Edward IV was a pawn in the power struggle between Richard and Henry. She had been promised to Henry Tudor by her mother, Elizabeth Woodville, and she eventually married him.)
Revisionists point out that, to all appearances, Richard and Anne were happily married — she accompanied him on his many trips to the North — and that both grieved the loss of their son. They further argue that Richard would have to rescind the judgment of illegitimacy on Edward IVs children in order to profit from marrying Elizabeth York, a complicating factor if the princes were still alive. The traditionalists logically point out that rescinding the illegitimacy would no longer pose a threat to Richards right to the throne if the princes were already dead.
Henry Tudor, a descendent of the House of Lancaster, had a tenuous claim to the throne of England. He was the son of a commoner, Owen Tudor, who had married the widow of Henry V. However, he had an ambitious mother and a number of significant supporters. Two of these were Bishop Morton and the Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham had been the primary supporter of Richard III during the frenetic period between Edward IVs death and Richards assumption of the throne, but betrayed Richard and joined the cause of Henry Tudor. Several reasons are given by different authors for Buckinghams defection. The first, and probably the most reasonable, is that Richard reneged on promises to transfer to Buckingham extensive properties. The second is that Buckingham was repelled by Richards murder of the two princes. Some theorists regard Buckingham as the most likely murderer of the princes, perpetrated in order to secure Henry Tudors claim to the throne. A variation of Buckinghams deed by some of the traditionalists camp is that Buckingham was the murderer, following instructions from Richard to carry out the deed.
Henry VII, the successor to
Richard III and the father of Henry
VIII (National Picture Gallery)
Portraits of Henry Tudor present a thin-lipped, sly man, much more likely to evince a response of distrust in the viewer than the famous portrait of Richard III. Like all of the English kings during the late medieval period, Henry was ruthless. He justified the killing of Richard at Bosworth Field by declaring that he had been declared king the day before the battle, thereby classifying Richard as a traitor against the crown. He conveniently dispatched to the headsmans block Sir James Tyrell after extracting a confession from Tyrell that he and two others were the actual murderers of the princes. While he solidified the Tudor hold on the crown for his son, Henry VIII, he was noted for his mean and stingy nature.
When Henry landed in Wales in 1483 with his forces of French mercenaries and English and Welsh rabble, he had lived half of his 28 years outside of England. In some respects, he was a foreign invader. But his noble supporters were intent on toppling Richard and replacing him, even if it had to be with the relatively unknown Henry Tudor.
If the Earl of Stanley had not kept his forces out of the Battle of Bosworth, Henry might have been defeated, and Richard III would have remained king.
One of Henrys first acts as king was to see that Parliament repealed Titulus Regius, the act by which Richard had used to declare Edward IVs children illegitimate. Now, his future queen, Elizabeth of York, sister of the princes, was legitimate and a proper wife for a king. However, by repealing the act, Edward V and his younger brother were legitimate once again. Hence, Henry was acknowledging that the princes were dead, since, by restoring Edward Vs legitimacy, he was acknowledging that the dead boy had been the rightful King of England.
Whatever Henrys personal traits, he gave his reign peace and stability, ending the War of the Roses by uniting, in marriage, the House of Lancaster, his family, and the House of York, his wifes family.
The murder of the princes in the Tower of London was, of course, a political act, and was prompted by the sequence of events that began with the death of Edward IV. Upon the death of her husband, Elizabeth Woodville, Edwards queen, sought to keep her family in power by moving swiftly to establish her son, Edward V, on the throne.
To accomplish this, she dispatched her brother, Lord Rivers, and her son from a previous marriage, Lord Richard Grey, as well as Greys chamberlain, Sir Thomas Vaughn, to bring young Prince Edward from the North. The idea was have Edward crowned as soon as possible, leaving him free to choose his own advisers, which would, of course, be his mother, his Woodville uncles and half-brothers, and nobility loyal to Edward IV. Thus Richard, as protector, would have his power neutralized by Elizabeth Woodville and her relatives.
Lord Hastings, a close friend and adviser of the dead king (who shared a mistress, Jane Shore, with him) protested against the size of the escort that the queen intended to send, and Elizabeth Woodville reduced the size of the force to 2,000 men. In the meantime, couriers from Hastings informed Richard, who was at York, of these developments, urging him to put himself at the head of an army and to arrive in London before Rivers brought the young king from Ludlow.
Richard left York for Northampton with an army of 600 men. At Northampton he was to join Rivers and Edward V and proceed to London together. By the time Richard arrived, he learned that Rivers and his troops had passed through the town and were now in Stony Stratford, some 12 miles closer to London. Rivers traveled back to Northampton to extend the young kings greetings to his uncle. Richard invited Rivers to stay for supper, and proposed that the next morning they ride together to meet the king. During the meal, the Duke of Buckingham arrived.
After Rivers retired for the night, Richard and Buckingham plotted. In the morning, Rivers was arrested. Richard and Buckingham then traveled the 12 miles to Stony Stratford and met with the young king. Richard gave his condolences, and then maintained that the same men who had encouraged Edward IVs vices were conspiring to ambush the protector. The interview, according to Thomas More, ended with the 12-year-old king in tears, and his half-brother, Richard Grey, and his chamberlain under arrest. When the news reached the queen, she took her remaining children and sought sanctuary in Westminster Abbey. London was in an uproar, mollified to some degree by a letter from Richard promising an early coronation for Edward V. Richard, Buckingham, and their retinue arrived in London, and the young king was safely lodged in the Palace of St. Paul.
All seemed calm, until Richard learned that Lord Hastings had begun to conspire with Elizabeth Woodville, shifting his loyalty from Richard, probably because he felt that Buckingham would now have access to the spoils that Hastings felt were his. Richard summoned the unsuspecting Hastings to a meeting at the Tower, where he asked Hastings what should happen to those who would conspire against the protector.
Lulled into a sense of relief when Richard seemed to be accusing the Woodvilles, he started to speak, when Richard slammed his fist on the table, calling Hastings a traitor. At that sign, armed men rushed into the room, took Hastings away, and, within minutes, he was (as described by Thomas More) brought forth into the green beside the chapel within the Tower, and his head laid down upon a log of timber and there striken off.
Richard immediately called forth a number of prominent citizens and declared that Hastings and others had planned to assassinate himself and Buckingham during their meeting, and that the traitor had to be killed immediately. The other conspirators were pardoned, no doubt to quiet the fears of the nobility. One of them, Bishop Morton, was to be kept in the custody of the Duke of Buckingham, and would rise again in opposition to Richard.
Edward V (National Archives)
It is probable at this point that Richard decided that if he were to survive, he must be king. Edward, the boy king, had shown some maturity, and would not be pleased to be ruled by his uncle, who had imprisoned his mothers brother, Lord Rivers, and his half-brother, Richard Grey, and who had driven his mother and younger brother into sanctuary. Worst of all, his uncle had beheaded his Lord Chamberlain, Hastings, within sight of the royal apartments in the Tower where young Edward was now lodged.
While Richard began his program to usurp the throne, he had Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan executed at Pontefract, where they had been kept. Most of the important opponents, including the powerful Hastings, were now out of the way.
Sir Thomas Mores version
(National Picture Gallery)
Sir Thomas More gives an account of how the murders were planned. According to him, Richard hatched his plot while on a royal progress through England, an attempt to visit regions throughout the land and establish his popularity. Mores description might be dramatized with the following scene:
Gloucester, July 30, 1483
Do you understand? You are to hence to the Tower and instruct our Lord Brackenbury to carry out the deed. It must be done, and done quickly.
John Green, loyal retainer to a fault, bowed to his sovereign, King Richard III. Your majesty, I will leave at once.
Four days later, Green was in the small chamber that was used by the Constable of the Tower, Sir Robert Brackenbury. He had revealed the purpose of his visit to the constable, who sat silently after Green had delivered his charge from the king.
In distress, Brackenbury finally said, Sir, I cannot. I love the king, but I cannot do this thing that he wishes. It is not within my purview. I have no stomach for it.
The king will not be pleased, Sir Robert. It is not a great thing that he asks of you. The young princes have no future, as you are well aware.
Brackenbury knelt before Green. Before our Lady in the Tower, I could never put the princes to death, though I should die therefore.
Now at Warwick Castle, Richard awaited the return of Green. Is it done?
Your majesty, he will not. He says he cannot.
Ah, a man of scruples is our Lord Brackenbury. We shall not compromise his loyalty. Yet, I will have it done. Is there not a man amongst my party who can do this? Ah, whom shall a man trust? Those that I have brought up myself fail me, and at my commandment will do nothing for me.
There is one, said Green. He lies outside your door. James Tyrell. You need only command him, and the princes will be dead.
Again, four days passed. At the gate of the Tower wall, Tyrell met with Brackenbury. Lord Brackenbury, this is my man, John Dighton, who assists me with this mission. I have here, mLord, a letter from the king, sealed by his hand. It directs you to deliver unto me the keys to the Tower wherein the princes lodge.
Brackenbury read the letter. Looking up, he said, I see. Very well, you shall have the keys.
Tyrell took the large ring of keys and said to Brackenbury, Who is with the princes? Who waits upon them?
There are four.
Is Miles Forest amongst their number?
He is.
I suggest that you dismiss all but Forest, and then retire to some place of refreshment within the city. You shall enjoy a full days deliverance from your duties.
Brackenbury sighed. I see. I will do as you suggest.
Two hours later, Tyrell, Forest, and Dighton were at a table at the Golden Cockerel. Tyrell spoke,It is now going upon nine oclock. You shall carry out the deed about midnight. There must be no mistake, no chance that either will survive. I will await you in the passageway. When you have finished, fetch me and show me that you have done what the king has commanded. Understood?
Ay, mLord, Forest and Dighton both replied.
Sir Thomas Mores version, 1511
by Richard Marius
Sir Thomas More, basing his account of the murders of the princes on the supposed confession of Sir James Tyrell, is vivid in his description of the deed. It is worth quoting directly from his biography of Richard:
Sir James Tyrell devised that they should be murdered in their bed, to the execution whereof he appointed Miles Forest, one of the four that kept them, a fellow fleshed in murder before time. To him he joined one John Dighton, his own horsekeeper, a big broad, square, strong knave. Then, all the other being removed from them, this Miles Forest and John Dighton about midnight (the children lying in their beds) came into the chamber and suddenly lapped them up among the clothes so bewrapped them and entangled them, keeping down by force the featherbed and pillows hard unto their mouths, that within a while, smored and stifled, their breath failing, they gave up to God their innocent souls into the joys of heaven, leaving to the tormentors their bodies dead in the bed.
(painting by Delaroche)
Sir Clements Markhams version, 1906:
A popular theory of some of the revisionists is that Buckingham murdered the princes, either to clear the way for Henrys usurpation, or to gain the throne for himself. The latter proposition, that Buckingham, also a descendant of Edward III, sought to be king, is particularly favored. Involved in this version of the murder plot is Bishop Morton, who appears to have been a very astute politician of the time. While he was accused of plotting against Richard with Lord Hastings, Morton was spared and given over to the supervision of Buckingham. Regardless of whichever murder theory is believed, Morton was instrumental in helping Henry wrest the throne from Richard. Interestingly, Sir Thomas More spent some of his youth in the household of Bishop Morton (subsequently esteemed by Henry VII as an important advisor). It has been assumed that Thomas More obtained some of his information for his biography of Richard from Morton, who was a very involved participant in the events of 1483 to 1485.
This theory had its most elaborate presentation by Sir Clements Markham. One might reconstruct Markhams theory with the following scene:
August, 1483:
It seems your king is not quite the generous benefactor you thought him to be. Bishop Morton, both sleek and fat like an otter, smiled at his captor, the Duke of Buckingham.
No doubt he has his reasons, said Buckingham.
Oh, I am sure he has his reasons to go back on his word. Richard — or should I say King Richard III? — always has his reasons. Devices would be a better word.
Buckingham paced. For one who was spared the headsmans axe, you are forward, my Bishop.
Forgive me, mLord. It is just that when one such as yourself has the ability to rule, it seems unfortunate that you would remain here, in Wales, whilst the king progresses triumphantly throughout his realm, forgetting those who aided him in usurping the throne of the unfortunate Edward V.
You speak treason, Morton. Mind your tongue.
I speak only the truth, as you know it to be the truth. Your lineage is as valid as the kings — nay, more so. You are Chancellor of England, yet you must settle for second-best. If you had not publicly proclaimed the illegitimacy of the princes, if you had not assisted the king in ridding him of Woodville opponents, where would our Richard III be now?
Tell me, Bishop. You are versed in the ways of power. What would you have me do?
Far be it for me to advise you, mLord. You do not need the words of a humble cleric to see your path. But it does seem to me that once the princes are — ah, how shall I put it? — removed from the scene, you are the foremost heir to the throne.
The princes? But they are bastards. They cannot inherit. Titulus Regius sees to that.
But dont you see? If something should befall our king, surely the act would be repealed, and then there are two who stand in your way to the throne. Young Edward and his brother would surely be restored to their rightful patrimony.
Buckingham was silent. Then, turning fiercely towards Morton, he said, They must be done away with. Only the duplicitous Richard would then stand in my way.
There is the Earl of Richmond — Henry Tudor. But his claim is weak, and if you were to join forces with the queen and her Woodville family, it would be impossible to deny you that which is rightfully yours.
We shall see, Bishop. We shall see.
****
Robert Brackenbury, summoned from a deep sleep, responded to the pounding at the North Tower Gate. Who comes?
Opening the gate, he saw the Duke of Buckingham and three men. Lord Brackenbury, as Chancellor of England, I command you to allow us to enter.
Of course, mLord. What is it that you wish?
Summon those who serve the princes. Dismiss them for the night. Take yourself and your servants to some other place in the city. You may return at dawn.
Brackenbury searched Buckinghams face for some indication of his intent. Finding none that he could discern, he bowed and said, As you wish, mLord. All of whom you speak shall be gone from the Tower in an hours time.
Buckingham led his men up the long staircase to the upper level of the East Tower. Pausing at the door to the chamber of the princes, he said, Do it now, and do it quickly and quietly. Do not let your hearts be swayed by their pleas for mercy. Dispose of them in some secret spot where they will neer be found. If you fail, you will forfeit your lives. Come to me when your task is complete. I will be in the constables apartment.
Bertram Fields version, 1998:
The theory of the murders favored by many admirers of Richard III lays the deed at the hands of Henry VII. This proposition suggests that the princes were alive at the time of Richards death at the Battle of Bosworth Field , and were not murdered until more than two years after their disappearance from public view.
October, 1485:
Henry VII, King of England for two months, was still insecure. His impending marriage to Elizabeth York, eldest daughter of Edward IV, was, of course, a necessary political act. The Houses of Lancaster and York would be joined, and what was left of the irritating Woodville family would be rendered ineffectual. He cared little for who should be his wife. Her lineage made her the most acceptable solution to the marriage problem. Notwithstanding, he was well aware of the tenuousness of his claim to the throne. The princes still lived, although he could thank Richard for not allowing them to be visible these past two years. Rumors abounded, and many thought that Richard had murdered them two years before. But, as long as they lived, his position as king was weak. Added to that, he had been forced to reverse their illegitimacy in order to justify his marriage to Elizabeth, and that, in effect, restored the older boy to his claim to the throne.
Henry enlists Sir James Tyrell, Richards loyal friend, to murder the princes and promises him protection . Tyrell kills the princes.
Tyrell did indeed have the protection of Henry VII, whether this version of the murders is true or not. For reasons that are not clear, Henry pardoned Tyrell twice over the next 10 years. The pardons could have been for Tyrells service to Richard, or they could have been for something more mysterious. Whatever the case, Tyrell prospered under Henry VII until 1502, when he appeared to be involved in a plot against Henry. The result was the execution of Tyrell, after he purportedly confessed to the murders of the princes in 1483. No written account of this confession has ever been found, although Thomas More claimed to have seen it.
Richard III was killed on August 21, 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, fighting valiantly against the forces of Henry Tudor. If he had not been betrayed by Lord Stanley (who kept his forces out of the battle until he saw his chance to make it decisive for Henry), Richard would have won. There would have been no Tudor dynasty, no Henry VIII, no Elizabeth I, and probably no James I.
The noted British historian, A.L. Rowse, described the aftermath of the battle:
Richards body was treated with great indignity. Perfectly naked, it was trussed over a horses back, head and arms dangling on one side, legs on the other.
Passing over a bridge the head was bruised against a stone. It was brought to the church of the Grey Friars at Leicester, where it was exposed for two days so that people might see that he was dead. A kings body would never have been treated in this way if he had not been what he was.
However, two serious pretenders made their claims during the early years of Richards successor, Henry VII. The first, Lambert Simnel, claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, son of George, the Duke of Clarence. Then, changing his story, Simnel claimed to be the younger of the two princes, Richard of York. The mastermind of this plot was probably John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, a nephew of Richard III. Since the Earl of Warwick, was alive and a prisoner in the Tower, it was clear that Simnel was an impostor. Henry had Georges son paraded through London in order to demonstrate that Simnel was a fraud. The plot came to an end at the Battle of Stoke in 1487 where Henry defeated and killed Lincoln and took Simnel prisoner. In an uncharacteristic act of mercy, Simnel was put to work in the royal kitchens. He died in 1525.
A more serious impostor was Perkin Warbeck, a pawn of Margaret of Burgundy, a sister of Richard III. Again, Warbeck claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, and, just as Simnel had done, then changed his identity to that of the younger Prince, Richard of York. This imposture became a dangerous threat to Henry, in that French and Scottish supporters made the Warbeck rebellion formidable. This conspiracy began in 1492 and lasted until 1497, when Warbecks invasion force was repelled and Warbeck captured. He was imprisoned, and, after Henry learned that he planned an escape and intended to resume his rebellion, executed in November, 1499. On the scaffold, Warbeck confessed that he was not the son of Edward IV. However, his royal bearing, his resemblance to Edward IV, and his knowledge of the royal house led many to continue to believe him to be the rightful heir to the throne of Edward IV.
During the reign of Henry VII, official biographers made certain that Richard IIIs reputation would be that of murderous tyrant. Well into the reign of his son, Henry VIII, scattered members of the York family (such as the Duke of Clarences daughter) were executed. By the time of Shakespeares play in 1592, a number of biographies and histories, including Sir Thomas Mores, had been published which supported the idea that Richard was a monster.
It was not until the middle of the 17th century, 150 years after the events of Richard IIIs reign, that a defense of Richard appeared. This was the sympathetic defense by Sir George Buck, eventually published by his nephew, also Sir George Buck.
As even the most strident defenders of Richard admit, we will never know for sure what happened to the princes in the Tower. The account of Thomas More, contemporary accounts by Mancini and certain chroniclers, and the discovery of the bones in the Tower, tend to support the contention that the princes were dead by 1483. While the medical evidence is not conclusive, and while the timing does not necessarily mean that Richard had to be the one who ordered the murders, all of this circumstantial evidence taken together supports the finding that Richard III was responsible for the murder of his nephews.
Chapter Notes:
Prologue: For an overview of the War of the Roses, consult the book by A.L. Rowse (9). There are numerous biographies of Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII in print. I have consulted in detail those in the bibliography, and examined a number of others that have sections about these three kings and their predecessors. If the reader wishes to understand the passions of the traditionalists and the revisionists, the two artistic works, Josephine Teys novel (12), and William Shakespeares play (11) should be read; they are both immensely entertaining. Most novels that deal with Richard III are not worth the trouble, and I must admit that those I sampled were unreadable.
Sir Thomas Mores History of Richard III requires a great deal of effort. Ones time is better spent reading one of the biographies of More (such as 6) for this information, or excerpts from his history that are quoted in biographies of Richard and the Princes.
The Richard the Third Society (the Ricardians) has a web site that is prolific in its postings and enthusiastic in its efforts to rehabilitate his reputation. Many of the articles on it are interesting and often persuasive. http://www.r3.org/intro.html
While the genealogical charts of the Yorks and Lancasters are difficult to interpret, they are necessary to figure out who the players are. I have not included one, but I recommend that the reader refer to one of the charts that appear in various works (such as 7, 13, and 14). Basically, all of the pedigrees begin with Edward III and his five sons. The Lancastrians are derived from the third son (John of Gaunt) and the Yorks from the fourth son (Edmund, duke of York).
A Discovery in the Tower: This chapter is based on the description of the discovery of the bones as presented by Weir (13). The roles of Charles III and the Royal Surgeon are true, and the facts of the discovery (location, disposition of the bones, their reburial) are, as far as I can determine from Weirs book and other accounts, accurate.
An Inquest: The work of Tanner and Wright appears in several books. This imagined description of their examination of the bones in 1933 is based on the presentations of Jenkins, Pollard, Weir, and Williamson (4, 7, 13, 14). I have not examined their original paper, published in 1934, since I could not find it in American libraries. Such items as the presence of animal bones in the Christopher Wren urn, the measurements, the determination of osteomyelitis and hypodontia, and the stain on the skull of the older skeleton are all true.
A number of articles have been published by the Richard the third Society that dispute the findings of Tanner and Wright, and Fields (3) and Williamsons (14) books have arguments against the Tanner and Wright conclusions.
Shakespeare at Work: Since Shakespeares play presents the image of Richard that most people have, I thought that it might be interesting to speculate how he might have envisioned his production of it. No records exist, of course, of how Shakespeare and his principal actor, Richard Burbage, approached the first production of Richard III, so we have only the text of the play to go on. The date given for the writing of the play is the one generally agreed upon by Shakespearean scholars. The introduction to most editions of the play confirm the date, and the contention that Shakespeare used Holinsheds History is usually mentioned. I have used the edition of Shakespeares plays published by the Folio Society (11), but any edition of the play is satisfactory, since it is not a play whose text is in dispute.
Edward IV: The primary source for this section comes from the book by Falkus (2), although biographies of Richard III contain extensive biographical information about Edward IV, and supplement Falkuss treatment.
Richard III: Again, the bibliography contains a number of books about Richard. As one would expect, those that deal with The Two Princes in the Tower provide a great deal of information about Richard, and this chapter contains material obtained from them, as well as the standard biographies. Some are revisionist (3, 5, 14) and some traditionalist (7, 8, 13). I have tried to be fair, and I have examined both types of biographies with, I hope, an open mind.
Recent productions of Shakespeares play demonstrate how Richard is portrayed. A famous production with Antony Sher is of particular note, since he has written a very fine account of his approach to the play in a memoir entitled The Year of the King. I mentioned the current English production starring Kenneth Branagh because of his grotesque approach to Richards supposed infirmities. Videos of the play starring, respectively, Laurence Olivier and Ian McKlellan are wonderful ways to experience Shakespeares version of Richard III.
Henry VII: This section is based primarily on the admiring biography by Simon (10). Again, books about Richard III also discuss Henry VII, and I have used material from these. If the books are traditionalist, Henry comes off quite well; if revisionist, he is painted as black a villain as Richard is to the traditionalist.
Events leading up to the murders: This chapter is basically an account of Richards usurpation of the crown. The information in it is taken mainly from Cheethams biography (particularly Chapter 4) and similar sections in Pollard, rowse, and Weir.
The Plot and the three versions of the murders: All accounts of the murders are based, ultimately, on Thomas Mores history. The quotation from More is taken from Pollard, page 115. The second and third versions of the murders come from Williamson and Fields.
Summing Up: Pollard presents the best arguments for the conclusion reached in this section, that is, that Richard probably ordered the murders of his nephews. Weir also argues for this viewpoint, although her arguments are vigorously refuted point-by-point by Fields.
Bibliography
A. Literature Cited
The Richard the Third Society website:
1. Cheetham, Anthony. 1972. The Life and Times of Richard III. Book Club Associates
2. Falkus, Gila. 1981. The Life and Times of Edward IV. Book Club Associates
3. Fields, Bertram. 1998. Royal Blood. Regan Books
4. Jenkins, Elizabeth. 1978. The Princes in the Tower. Hamish Hamilton
5. Kendall, Paul Murray. 1955. Richard the Third. Allen & Unwin
6. Marius, Richard. 1984. Thomas More. Dent
7. Pollard, A.J. 1991. Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. Allen Sutton
8. Ross, Charles. 1981. Richard III. Eyre Methuen
9. Rowse, A.L. 1966. Bosworth Field and the War of the Roses. Macmillan
10. Simon, Eric N. 1968. Henry VII. Frederick Muller
11. Shakespeare, William. 1985. Histories. The Folio Society
12. Tey, Josephine. 1952. The Daughter of Time. Macmillan
13. Wier, Alison. 1992. The Princes in the Tower. Ballantine Books
14. Williamson, Audrey. 1978. The Mystery of the Princes. Alan Sutton
B. General Sources
15. Hudson, M.E. and Mary Clark. 1978. Crown of a Thousand Years. Crown
16. Morgan, Kenneth O. 1984. The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Book Club Associates
C. The Richard III Society Online Library
17. Maurer, Helen. 2000. Whodunnit: The Suspects in the Case
18. Michalove, Sharon D. 1995. The Reinvention of Richard III
19. Murph, Roxane C. 1998. Ricardian Fiction: Trash and Treasures
20. Wigram, Isolde. 1995. Were the Princes in the Tower Murdered?
D. Primary Sources for the Serious Scholar
21, Buck, Sir George. History of the Life and Reign of Richard III (edited by A.N. Kincaid) Alan Sutton, 1979
22. Chronicles of London (edited by C. L. Kingsford) Oxford, 1905
23. The Croyland Chronicle Continuation, 1459-1486 (edited by N. Pronay and J. Cox) Oxford, 1986
24. Fabyan, Robert. The Concordance of Histories: The New Chronicles of England and France, 1516 (edited by H. Ellis) 1812
25. Hall, Edward. The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York, 1550 (edited by H. Ellis, 1809) facsimile, 1970
26. Holinshed, Raphael. Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (edited by H. Ellis, 1807-1808) facsimile, 1970
27. Mancini, Dominic. De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium (translated and edited by C.A.J. Armstrong) Oxford, 1969
28. More, Sir Thomas. The History of King Richard the Third (edited by R.S. Sylvester and others) Yale, 1963
29. Rous, John. The Rous Roll (edited by C.R. Ross and W. Courthope) Alan Sutton, 1980