Princes in the Tower: The Ugly Truth!
On the ninth of April 1483, is where our story begins. A look back in time
at a medieval mystery, a mystery that remains unsolved even to this day. With
the death of King Edward the fourth, he left behind two sons, Edward, age 12
and Richard, just nine. Both boys were put under the protectorship of
Edwards brother Richard, the Duke of Gloucester. But lurking in the shadows
was his sworn enemy, Henry Tudor, a man who posed a massive threat. It's a tale
of terror that leads us to the Tower of London, once the home of monarchs in
England at that time. It's a battle for survival, a tale of intrigue of kidnap
and murder, but who are the suspects? And what was the motivation behind the
internment of these boys? Join me now as we look at the story of the
Princes in the Tower.
Edward IV died on the ninth of April 1483, he left his sons Richard and
his elder brother Edward would now become the new King Edward the fifth.
Edward stayed at Ludlow castle, while the dead king's brother Richard, Duke of
Gloucester was spending time in Yorkshire at Middleham Castle. On the 15th of
April Gloucester found out about the death, he then travelled to York Minster
to pledge his loyalty to his new king. When the two of them eventually set out
for London, it would be at a place called Stony Stratford that they would meet
up on the 29th of April. After their initial talks. The following day,
Gloucester rounded up Anthony Woodville, second Earl Rivers, along with Sir
Richard Grey. These two were part of Edward the fourths crew. But he sent the
men to Pontefract Castle, where they would be executed on the 25th of June. He
would also now place his arm around Prince Edward, it looked unlikely that
Edward was going anywhere fast. This news created panic for Elizabeth
Woodville, who fled to sanctuary at Westminster Abbey with her son Richard,
Duke of York, and her daughters. When both Edward the fifth and Gloucester
arrived in London, they set plans for Edwards coronation, he would stay at the
Tower of London. In those times the tower was a residence for Monarchs. Edward
the fourth trusted his brother Richard to do the right thing. Richard even
swore an oath to protect his nephews. However, things were now moving at pace.
On the 16th of June, Edward was joined by his younger brother Richard at the
tower. On the 22nd of June, a sermon by Dr. Ralph Shaa who was brother to the
Lord Mayor proclaimed that Gloucester was the only legitimate heir to the house
of York. By June the 25th, the group of knights and Lords declared that
Gloucester should take the throne. Both princes were then declared illegitimate
by Parliament. They also stated that the marriage of Edward the fourth and
Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to a pre contract made with Lady Eleanor
Butler. On the third of July, Gloucester was crowned King Richard the third.
At this point, the boys were still looked upon as royalty. But soon that would
change and they would become prisoners. It was recorded by an Italian friar
Dominic Mancini that Richard seized the throne. As for Edward and his younger
brother, Richard, they were taken to the tower and placed in apartments. The
two we're seen less and less over the coming days until one day, they just
disappeared entirely. Mancini said that Edward regularly had a visit by
a doctor, who then reported his demeanour was at a low ebb, yet he confessed his
sins daily and believed that death was nearing. Other reports suggest the
two princes were seen within the tower grounds playing but after the summer of
1483, there were no further sightings. It remains a mystery and one that still
unresolved. Historians believe that the boys had been murdered. One suggestion
is that a rebellion against Richard in 1483 was aimed at rescuing Edward the
fifth and his brother. However, the Duke of Buckingham became involved, and at
that point, it looks pretty likely that both boys had already been murdered.
The rebellion force reluctant to take it any further at this stage decided to
support Henry Tudor in his quest to remove Richard the third from power.
Although the prince's had vanished, there is no evidence to suggest they were
murdered. Neither do the theories give a clear view of what happened. The
nearest anyone can get to the truth is an account by the aforementioned
Dominic Mancini, which by the way, was not discovered until 1934 in Lille, at
the municipal library. Accounts written after the disappearance sound spurious
and quite possibly based solely on propaganda coming out of the house of Tudor
Over the years for unidentified bodies have been found at the Tower of London, all
considered to be from this period. Two of the four in the tower and the others
were at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle. As of yet, authorities have
declined submissions to have them interred along with DNA test conducted to
try and form a positive identity. Rumours of the tragedy have constantly
circulated from their time of disappearing to the modern-day. And some have
even travelled across the channel to France. It would be in January of 1484. That
Guillaume de Rochefort, the Lord Chancellor of France urged the estates general to take
warning on the fate of the princes as their King Charles the eighth was only
13. Many at the court believed that Richard the third killed them before seizing
the throne in England. But in a book entitled the De Commines' Memoirs around 1500
states that the Duke of Buckingham was the real culprit.
Interestingly, the only possible and plausible account is by Mancini, two
articles one in the Croyland Chronicle and the other French report were both
written sometime after the event. It's been suggested. The current article may
have been influenced by the then Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton, to try
and incriminate Richard the third. But one fascinating theory comes from
the pen of Thomas More. It's a fact that Thomas grew up in the household of
John Morton who as we know was unhappy with Richard. In his writings he
identified Sir James Tyrell as behind the murder who acted upon order from Richard.
Tyrell was a very loyal servant to Richard, It's even said that Tyrell
confessed to the murders before his execution for treason in 1502. Thomas
More said that the princess was smothered in their beds by two people who were
agents of Tyrell. One was Miles Forest and the other John Dighton. More claims
that the bodies were buried at the foot of some stairs, deep into the ground
and covered with stones. Yet later disinterred and moved to a secret location.
The Tower of London holds many secrets from it's past. However, one was discovered
in 1674, when a group of workmen dug up a wooden box. Inside it contained two
skeletons, they had found the box under a staircase that led to the White Tower.
This however, wasn't the first discovery of children's remains at the tower,
as others have been found in an old chamber that had been bricked up. The
reason it was said to be the remains of the princess was purely based on the
account of Thomas More. However, this does not match as the staircase where
these bones were found was not built at the time of Richard the third. Four
years after the discovery Charles the second had the bones placed in an urn and
reinterred at Westminster Abbey. Within the wall of Henry the seventh lady
chapel. A monument was erected by Christopher Wren, marking the rest in place
of the assumed princes. In 1933, these bones were removed and examined by
Lawrence Tanner, an archivist at the time, Professor William Wright anatomist
and George Northcroft, who was president of the Dental Association. They
concluded that they were in fact bodies of two small children who would have
been around the age of the princes, when they disappeared. The parts that
remained were in poor condition due to the workman who had literally just
stumbled across them. Many bones were missing, including the lower jaw and all
the teeth on the more significant subjects. Yet criticism would follow. Many
said that the men who had done preparatory work on the bones have not even
determined whether they were from a male or a female. And the exercise was a
whitewash which just looked to implicate the princes on flimsy evidential
work. Since that point no further scientific work has been carried out on
these remains. And although even with modern DNA and carbon dating techniques,
it's quite possible it could prove the bones did indeed belong to the
princes, but it would be unlikely to show any evidence of how they died,
or who killed them.
Our following location is St George's Chapel Windsor. In 1799, workers were
carrying out repairs when they accidentally broke into the vault containing
Edward the fourth and Elizabeth Woodville. At the time a small adjoining vault
was spotted. Within that another two bodies were found. They both seem to
harbour the bones of small children. Both were unidentifiable, and no
examination was carried out, and the tomb was resealed. This particular part
of the plot is intriguing the tomb they discovered had inscribed the names of
two of Edward the fourths children, one being George the first Duke of Bedford who
died at the age of two and the other of Mary of York, who was only 14 when she
passed away. However, the two lead coffins of George and Mary had already been
found elsewhere within the chapel. So whose bodies had the workers discovered?
Let's move forward to the 1990s workers excavated an area of St George's
Chapel. The intention was to replace an old boiler and add a new repository for
the deans and canons of Windsor. Requests were made to use a fibre optic camera
to explore the Edward the fourth vault, if possible to examine the unknown
coffins which were inside. But to do this, royal consent would be
required. In 2012, an archaeological dig resumed great interest in the
princess story. The remains had been found of Richard the third in Leicester.
And this opened up the theories again. Now there might be an opportunity to
discover more, but Queen Elizabeth the Second refused. Richard the third had
always been the likeliest candidate for the princes disappearance. Even though
Richard had removed both of them from the line of succession, but his hold on
the crown had always been insecure, due to the way he had initially gained it.
After an attempt was made to rescue the boys, it's clear that Richard thought
these two were a threat. For as long as they were both alive. A rebellion
could have been raised and used the boys as an objective to remove Richard.
Rumours once again continued in 1483, when it's now considered, they had both
died. The reasoning behind this is that Richard never allowed them to be seen
in public, and other evidential accounts suggest Richard was away at the
time, this left the boys in the tower under his orders. Still, visitations
were strictly limited, and even then only under the charge of Richard himself.
He could have got someone to do the deed for him. But again, this would only
have occurred with his prior knowledge. The Man from the account of Thomas
More was indeed described as the killer of the princess Tyrell was a Knight
who had fought for the house of York, but he was arrested by Henry the seventh
forces in 1502. More described that Tyrell shortly confessed to the murders
with the help of two other men, just before his execution, but this had been
on the orders Richard the third. Although he then went on to claim he did not
know where the bodies were buried.
Our third suspect was Richard's right hand
man, although Henry Stafford's guilt would depend on specific circumstances
surrounding the event, as Henry himself was executed in November 1483.
He had motives being a descendant of Edward the third on his father's side
through John of Gaunt the first Duke of Lancaster, along with Thomas of
Woodstock, first Duke of Gloucester, and the son of John of Gaunt again called
John on his mother's side. Buckingham may have had hopes of becoming monarch himself
over time, but Richard stood in the way for now. Yet Henry, who had rebelled
against Richard, which led to his death, was quite possibly unhappy at
Richard's orders to carry out the murders. And this swayed him in his loyalty
to Richard. So did Henry on orders from Richard kill the princess? And we must
also ask another question. If Henry had carried out the crime, why did Richard
not openly talk about this to clear his own name from the proceedings, and for
this reason alone is pretty positive Henry would never have carried out this
act without Richard's collaboration. Following his claim to the crown in
England, it is said that some other claimants to the throne were executed. One
of these was a John of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of Richard the third.
Although Henry was away from England at the prince's disappearance, in which
case his only opportunity to have murdered them, would have been after 1485 on
his accession to the throne. Henry has never been accused of the murders.
However, the boys certainly posed a threat to Henry Tudor. His claim to the
throne would certainly be weakened if they had survived, he even married Edward
the fourths daughter, Elizabeth of York, and brought all her remaining children
into the line of succession. But at this point, the princes were already dead.
So it seemed like a win win situation for the new Tudor King. There simply was
no evidence and if it had been the case, I'm sure he would have produced the
bodies and quickly laid the blame at Richard the thirds door. John Howard, the
first Duke of Norfolk, had been implicated. Margaret Beaufort was another as
Henry the seventh mother, and even Jane Shore, who was a mistress to Edward the
fourth. But as with these and other theories, none can be taken seriously. The
major stumbling block with any other but Richard carrying out the crime would
have had to be done with Richards order and knowledge. And the central fact is
that Richard was responsible for the safekeeping of these boys. So who did it?
Numerous notable people have all guessed who did this awful crime, however, did a
crime even take place? During the reign of Henry the seventh two people came
forward claiming to be Richard, Duke of York. One of these was Lambert Simnel.
Yet he changed his story again and then claimed he was Edward plantagenet, the
17th Earl of Warwick, another bold man came forward this time Perkin Warbeck.
He made the same claim as Lambert. He was saying while in Ireland, that he was
in fact King Richard the fourth. This is now where it gets confusing and that's
if you're not already confused? Margaret of York had formally recognised Warbeck
as Richard. However, Margaret, who was Richard the third sister, also recognised
Lambert as Warick. Warbeck had been accepted as Richard the fourth by James a
fourth in Scotland. After an attempt to invade England, he had been captured,
which points he retracted his claims he was imprisoned and later executed. Yet
this would now open a large can of worms. Two people who had insisted they
were someone else caused many problems. And even in the 18th century, the
writer Horace Walpole argued that Richard had escaped death, and that Warbeck
was the genuine Richard. Although this statement was removed by Walpole
later, and he succumbed to the majority in believing that Richard the third,
was the man behind this dreadful crime. Whether it was a political move, or
one of pure hate the reasons and more importantly, what happened to these boys
is still a mystery. Richard has been blamed for the whole sorry saga, and even
if it wasn't the man who carried out what is thought to be murder, you
could quite possibly believe that he had some sway in the outcome. He doesn't
seem very incredible that Richard thought removing these two boys would somehow
shield his self preservation, and even to the point of allowing his detractors
to become acceptable of his own misdemeanours. But it would be Henry Tudor,
who was the man to remove Richard finally. Rebels joined Henry in overthrowing
this most feared man, Richard had been labelled as the usurper to the throne,
and the murderer of the young princes. It seems the powers that be, would do
anything to help Henry take the throne, and remove once and for all a king
who has caused more destruction and death, then ever could be imagined. The
recriminations were swift, Richard was dead, but the theories and ongoing
speculation about what happened to these two young princes was just beginning.
Thank you so much for watching. I really appreciate it. For more amazing
stories. Join me today and benefit by subscribing, and check out both the videos
coming up on the screen right now. And I'll see you all again here soon on the
History Roadshow.