Perhaps one of the most heated debates in C15th history pertains to the mystery of the Princes in the Tower.
What happened to the two boys? Why did they disappear? Were they murdered by their uncle, Richard III? By someone else? Did they die of natural causes? Or did they in fact survive to challenge for their birthrights several years later?
Over the past year or so, new research has attempted to shed some light on these questions.
Some of this research comes from the work of a group of Dutch researchers in collaboration with Phillipa Langley. Langley has argued that their work shows Richard could not have killed his nephews since they survived his reign.
However, other research, by Professor Thornton, has been deployed in support of the account given by Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More. According to More, far from surviving their uncle’s reign, the princes were murdered on Richard’s orders.
But does any of this get us any closer to answering the C15th’s greatest mystery – what became of the princes?
Who Were the Princes?
On 9th April 1483 King Edward IV of England died at the relatively young age of 40. The last few years of his life were characterised by an unhealthy lifestyle, which led to the king rapidly gaining weight. His death might well have been due to a haemorrhagic stroke. He was survived by two young sons – the eponymous princes. The eldest, his successor, was Edward V, just 12 years old. The second, Richard of Shrewsbury, was 9.
A boy-king (as Edward V then was) was a destabilising prospect for any medieval kingdom. However, in 1483, following the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses, the situation was especially dangerous. Different factional interests soon began to jockey for position. Over in France there were the Tudors, potential Lancastrian challengers to the Yorkist line. But in England, the Queen Mother and her Woodville relatives threatened to dominate the court through her young son. Then there was Richard, appointed the boys’ protector until such time as Edward V could assume his full powers.
Richard moved fastest. He seized control of the boys, almost certainly with an eye to side-lining the Woodville faction. Then, a few weeks later, he declared the boys illegitimate and claimed the throne for himself.
The Princes’ Disappearance
Richard III lodged his nephews at the Tower of London. At the time the Tower was primarily a royal residence. It also doubled as a stronghold in which important prisoners might be incarcerated. The fact that the princes lodged there was not that unusual (kings of England often stayed there before their coronation). At first the princes appear to have had free run of the Tower and were often seen in the grounds. However, as the weeks passed, the threat of rebellion and unrest loomed. Richard III’s new regime came under increasing pressure from conspiracies, both real and imagined.
In the febrile atmosphere of the summer of 1483, the princes appeared less and less. By late summer they disappeared from the public eye entirely, never to be seen again. In the autumn of that year rebellion indeed rocked Richard’s kingdom. Woodville sympathisers, Edward V loyalists, Tudors and opportunists such as the Duke of Buckingham joined forces against him. The rebellion failed but it showed that Richard’s regime was facing very real threats at this time.
As to the fate of the princes? Ultimately the only thing we know for sure is that they disappeared in the summer of 1483. Since that time there were no confirmed sightings of either boy. So, what became of them?
The ‘Traditional’ Narrative
As the summer of 1483 wore on, the princes’ absence from public life became the subject of increasingly dark rumours. Perhaps their uncle had murdered them? Or, perhaps, it had been the Duke of Buckingham? The rumour mill began to gather pace, both in England and on the continent.
Much later, long after Richard III himself was dead, a more detailed narrative of events began to emerge. This owed much to Tudor historians. They were mostly writing (or at least publishing their work) during the reign of Henry VIII. One of the most prominent of these was Sir Thomas More, a senior Tudor courtier and polymath.
More’s account claimed that Richard III had ordered the murder of his nephews in the summer of 1483. More claimed Sir James Tyrell organised the murders, commissioning Miles Forest and John Dighton to do the dirty work. Tyrell was also identified as responsible in other Tudor accounts. However, More’s version included more specific details than those appearing in any previous account. More even claimed that the boys’ remains had been concealed in a makeshift burial site in the Tower.
More’s story is the most detailed explanation of how the murders had been carried out and who had been involved. However, it was also problematic.
The Problems with More
We should not forget that More was a Tudor politician. Not just a politician but a senior statesman. He was appointed to Henry VIII’s Privy Council in 1514 and became his Lord High Chancellor in 1529. As a result, it would be foolish to ignore his potential bias. He had every reason to want to discredit the old Ricardian regime. More wrote his account between 1513 and 1518. However it was not published in his lifetime since he did not finish it.
Tyrell himself was tried and convicted of treason by Henry VII’s regime on 2nd May 1502. More claimed that it was at this time that Tyrell confessed to murdering the princes. However, no record of such a confession has ever been discovered. Officially, Tyrell was charged and convicted of conspiring against the king with Edmund de la Pole, a potential usurper.
Another problem was that More began writing his account over three decades after the princes’ disappearance. And More was a statesman, not an historian. This is clear from several errors that creep into More’s narrative. For example, he states that Edward IV was 53 at the time of his death when he was actually 40.
A big unanswered question pertains to More’s sources. How did he come by such detailed information? He states only that his sources were “them that much knew and little cause had to lie”.
Thornton’s Research
Research over the past few years undertaken by Professor Thornton has highlighted new evidence that, it is claimed, bolsters the credibility of More’s account. So, what is Thornton saying?
The first point Thornton highlights is to bring greater clarity as regards More’s likely sources. Thornton shows that More was active at the Tudor court at the same time as a man thought to be the son of one of the alleged murderers (Miles Forest). This could mean that More’s source was not just ‘them that much knew’ but one of the murderer’s sons.
The second piece of evidence comes in the form of the will of Margaret Capell, a wealthy widow. This document shows that her husband owned a chain that had once belonged to Edward V. This becomes more significant when it is considered that Margaret’s brother-in-law was Sir James Tyrell – the man More accused of organising the princes’ murders. Furthermore, the lawyer drawing up the will had been none other than More’s son. Thus, we have a piece of material evidence connecting the alleged murderer with one of the victims. As well as evidence to show More would have been aware of this.
Limitations
Before getting carried away we need to consider the limitations of Thornton’s evidence.
In the case of the connection between More and Forest, there are still several unanswered questions. Whilst More and Forest moved in the same court circles we do not know how well, if at all, they knew each other. That said, it seems quite reasonable to assume that their paths crossed. Secondly, we do not know for certain that the Forest known to More was definitely the son of Miles Forest. That said, it seems likely that he was. But why would Forest’s son rat his own father out to More? Why risk destroying the reputation of your own family?
With regards to the chain, we cannot know for sure how it came to be in the possession of the Capell family. It may or may not have come via Tyrell. Following Edward V’s disappearance (or murder) there are any number of explanations as to how and why an item of his royal wardrobe had come into Capell’s possession. Once Edward V had been declared illegitimate by his uncle, his status changed and thus items of his royal wardrobe, such as his royal chain, would no longer have been extant. Richard III could have simply distributed it as a gift along with other items from the wardrobe to courtiers such as Tyrell for any number of reasons.
Survival of the Princes (the Case for ‘Proof of Life’)
One of the central arguments against Richard’s guilt focuses on the uncertainty of the princes’ fate. No bodies have ever been found that could be confirmed as belonging to either boy. So, we cannot be certain that they even died in 1483.
A key challenge to the traditional narrative asserts that the princes were not murdered at all. Indeed, they did not even die in 1483. What if both had survived and later returned to England to reclaim their birthright? This would mean they could not have died in 1483. Therefore, their uncle could not have murdered them.
Two pretenders did emerge to challenge the Tudor claim to the throne after 1485. Both were associated at various times with the two princes; their supporters claiming they were Edward IV’s sons and heirs. The first returned to England in 1487 but was defeated at the Battle of Stoke on 16 June of that year. This pretender, depending on which source you pick is variously presented as Richard of Shrewsbury, Edward of Warwick (the princes’ cousin), or, according to new evidence, Edward V.
The second pretender staked a claim to the English throne in Dublin, in 1491. He claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury and remained a thorn in Henry VII’s side until he was finally captured, in the autumn of 1497.
However, the idea that these two pretenders were the princes is also problematic.
The First Pretender
The obvious problem with both pretenders is the gaps in their stories. Both princes disappeared in the summer of 1483. No one saw anything of either of them until the first pretender popped up in 1486. The second did not even surface until the early 1490s. Where had they been in the intervening years?
The second problem is the confused identity of the first pretender. Three different near contemporary sources provide three different identities for this individual. Jean Molinet, writing in 1490, claims the pretender was Edward of Warwick, a cousin of the two princes. Bernard André, writing in 1500, claims the pretender was falsely impersonating Richard of Shrewsbury, not Edward. Polydore Vergil, writing between 1503 and 1513, claims he was falsely impersonating Edward of Warwick. Such confusion clearly counts against his credibility.
After he was captured, Henry VII had the boy questioned. The story that emerged was that he was in fact Lambert Simnel, a pupil of a priest by the name of Richard Simon. He was no more than a puppet; raised up as a figurehead for a rebellion organised by disgruntled nobles. The official Tudor verdict was that Lambert was the son of a humble Oxford joiner, impersonating Edward of Warwick.
Accepting that the boy had been used, Henry VII decided to pardon him and set him to work as a servant in his kitchens.
Perkin Warbeck
The second pretender was backed by Margaret of Burgundy (who’d also supported the first pretender) and by her continental ally, Maximilian of Germany. Margaret’s support was significant, since she was Edward IV’s sister, hence the aunt of the two princes.
The identity of the second pretender is less confused in so far as the sources all agree that he claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury.
After his final defeat, he too was questioned. As a result, an alternative story of the boy’s life emerged. In this version he was not Richard but Perkin Warbeck. He’d been born in Flanders in 1474, the son of a town Burgess in Tournai, by the name of Jehan de Werbecque. During Perkin’s travels as a cloth trader, he’d picked up some English. Then, on a business trip to Dublin in 1491, local Yorkists had remarked upon his resemblance to Edward IV. It was this that encouraged Henry’s enemies to set Warbeck up as a pretender, assuming the identity of Richard of Shrewsbury.
The idea that Warbeck was the real Richard clearly had problems. If he’d been Richard, where had he been all these years? And, if he was a well-educated English prince, why was it that his spoken English was reported as being poor?
The Dutch Research Group
Between 2019 and 2020 a group of Dutch Researchers, working in collaboration with Phillipa Langley, highlighted several documents, all of which are continental in origin.
In Langley’s Channel 4 documentary she claimed that this newly unearthed evidence proved that the princes survived their disappearance of 1483. This ‘proof of life’, if true, would mean that Richard could not have murdered his nephews. An important aspect of Langley’s approach hinges on the assertion that English sources are so tainted with ‘Tudor propaganda’ as to lack credibility. Thus, Langley argues, we should look more closely at continental sources, free from such bias.
Leaving this assertion aside for now, we must first consider what exactly these sources were and what they show.
The New Evidence
In summary, we are dealing, primarily, with four key pieces of evidence:
- A receipt for weapons for ‘Edward V’ of England, dated 16 December 1487. The weapons were paid for by Maximilian of Germany’s court and intended for use by the supporters of the pretender now known as Lambert Simnel.
- The written testimony of Richard of Shrewsbury, explaining his movements and whereabouts between his disappearance in 1483 and his reappearance in the early 1490s.
- A receipt from October 1493 signed by ‘Richard of England’ and a pledge of repayment for a loan of 30,000 florins from Duke Albert of Saxony.
- A letter from Maximilian of Germany to Henry VII, from the autumn of 1493, claiming to have examined the pretender claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury and asserting that he believes his claims to be genuine.
So, what is the significance of these documents?
Edward V (or Lambert Simnel)
The receipt for weapons identifies the pretender of 1487 as Edward V. This shows that the pretender’s continental backers were referring to him as Edward V at this time. This is at odds with the three identities we were previously aware of: the real Edward of Warwick, an imposter Warwick, or the real Richard of Shrewsbury.
Now, it is worth saying at this point that he couldn’t have been Edward of Warwick. The real Warwick was still alive at the time and did not die until 1499. But is it possible a writer of the period might confuse Edward V with Edward of Warwick given their shared name?
Langley contends that, as far as the pretenders’ supporters were concerned, this document shows they believed they were fighting for the real Edward V. Other claimed identities, she argues, arise from confusion or from Tudor propaganda attempting to discredit Edward.
However, Jean Molinet identified the pretender as Edward of Warwick, and he was not a Tudor propagandist. He was in fact a Burgundian chronicler and thereby associated with the faction supporting the pretender.
Indeed, there does not appear to have been a consistent Tudor narrative regarding the boy’s claimed identity (two different Tudor sources present conflicting opinions over who the pretender was claiming to be).
Richard of Shrewsbury (or Perkin Warbeck)
In the case of the second pretender we have a detailed account, purporting to be written by Richard, explaining what happened to him between 1483 and his re-appearance in the early 1490s. This account has long been known about but considered dubious. The work of the Dutch group mainly focused on authenticating it as being genuinely written in the period. This Langley takes as providing us with an authentic and credible explanation as to what happened to Richard during the decade of his disappearance.
The account, however, is vague about the motives of those who smuggled Richard out of England and hid him in Europe. We therefore lack a cogent explanation as to why he and his brother were spirited out of the Tower, and on whose orders.
For all we know this deposition could be nothing more than a contemporary fraud designed to bolster the credibility of the pretender’s claim. Fabricating false credentials for political ends were, after all, not uncommon in the period.
The German Connection
Two separate documents demonstrate support for Richard (alternatively Perkin) within Germany. The Duke of Saxony loaned money to his cause and Maximilian I wrote to Henry VII to express his belief in Richard’s claim. Thus, we have two separate German sources who appear to be convinced that the boy was, indeed, the real Richard of Shrewsbury. Langley positions these as independent witnesses, unsullied by Tudor bias. If they had not been genuinely convinced, then why would they lend such wholehearted support, expending financial and political capital in the process? So goes the argument for the proof of life theory.
Why would a German Duke spend a small fortune in support of an imposter? Why would the King of Germany risk his reputation on a fraud? Langley asserts that the explanation must be that these Germans were genuinely convinced the pretender really was Richard of Shrewsbury.
However, these two apparently separate witnesses are to all intents and purposes the same witness. Maximilian was a very powerful man, not just king of Germany but heir apparent to the Holy Roman Empire. The Duke’s motives were therefore very straightforward – to curry favour with his future Emperor. The question therefore comes down to Maximilian’s motives.
Maximilian of Germany
Maximilian wrote to Henry to tell him that the pretender was, in his view, the real deal. This, he claimed, was because the pretender had certain unique birthmarks that only the real Richard of Shrewsbury had. There is an obvious problem here of course – how did Maximilian know about such marks? He’d never met the prince before, although he claimed his information came from one who had. However, there are no earlier records of Prince Richard ever having such marks.
But the central question still stands, why would Maximillan fabricate false credentials for a pretender? The answer lies in politics. And it is within this context that Maximilian’s motives need to be considered. This, unfortunately, is the big weakness of Langley’s argument; a failure to adequately explore the motives of her sources.
So, what was Maximilian’s angle? Whether genuine or false, it would be very naïve to assume that Maximilian would put his political weight behind any pretender for purely altruistic reasons. Maximilian’s support depended on two key things. Firstly, that the pretender could be presented as reasonably credible (whether they really were genuine or not). And, secondly, that there was something in it for Maximilian politically. This was, after all, the age of Machiavelli! So, what was in it for Maximilian?
European Politics
Continental Europe in the late 1480s and 1490s was a political powder keg. Two rival superpowers were jockeying with each other for supremacy. On the one side was the Holy Roman Empire, traditionally the dominant European power. On the other was France which, having won the Hundred Years’ War, was emerging as a rival to the old Habsburg hegemony.
Should the Empire and France ever find themselves at war, there was significant advantage to be gained from having England as an ally. Henry VII, however, was his own man. In 1485 the French had helped put him on the throne. Then, in 1489, Henry sided with Brittany against France. But, in the autumn of 1492, he’d brokered a deal with France – he stopped supporting Brittany and, in exchange, the French stopped supporting Perkin Warbeck.
On the continent the inevitable storm finally broke. Charles VIII of France, invaded Italy in 1494, seeking to take Naples by force. By 1496 Maximilian had intervened in Italy as well. The two great continental powers were not yet in direct conflict, but the prospect of a such a clash loomed large. These were the opening shots in what would become known as the Italian Wars.
The English Question
Throughout this period, the question that loomed large in the minds of men like Maximilian was “where did England stand?” In any future confrontation between France and the Empire, which side, if any, would England pick? With Henry VII on the throne there was no clear answer to this question. Henry had made it obvious that he was his own man. His choice of sides, if he chose a side at all, would likely be made on a purely mercenary basis.
However, the threat of a pretender could provide leverage over Henry. The French king had, after all, used Perkin Warbeck as leverage to persuade Henry to stop backing his enemies in Brittany. But two could play at that game. Tellingly, Maximilian’s letter to Henry, affirming his support for Perkin, comes just after Henry had signed his peace deal with France.
Perkin could now provide Maximilian with leverage. Perkin also provided a cheap and easy way of putting a compliant puppet on the English throne. Someone who could be more reliably called upon to support the Empire in any future conflict with France.
It is therefore entirely misleading to present Maximilian and his allies as if they were independent and neutral in the matter of the princes. Their potential bias must be regarded as every bit as a problematic as any Tudor source.
Margaret the Aunt
Another important actor in relation to the pretenders is Margaret of Burgundy, the princes’ aunt. She vouched for the authenticity of both pretenders, and she is referenced on the receipt of 1487. She claimed to have identified Richard as her nephew because of details known to him relating to a conversation she’d had with the boy in 1480. But what motive would she have had to back a false pretender?
Margaret, as a York, was clearly not happy to see a Lancastrian regime supplant her family in England. Her support for the pretenders owed much to her personal animosity towards Henry Tudor. However, Margaret also had practical political reasons to want regime change in England.
Burgundy was nominally subject to the French king but had remained fiercely independent for much of the C15th. However, by the end of the century, France was beginning to flex her political muscles. Much of Burgundy’s old lands had been annexed by the French and the independence of what remained was under threat. When the York dynasty failed in England, Margaret lost an important potential ally in any future dispute with France.
Margaret the Politician
However, Margaret was a brilliant politician, almost certainly the most talented of all the York family. To counter the threat of France she brokered a marriage between her stepdaughter and Maximilian of Germany. Sandwiched between two superpowers, Margaret had to play a clever game to ensure Burgundy’s survival. Her connections to both France and the Empire allowed her to play off one against the other should the need arise.
Unlike her York brothers, Henry Tudor had no reason to support Margaret in any future dispute with either France or the Empire. And, even if he could be persuaded to do so, the likelihood was that he would want his pound of flesh in return. However, if he could be replaced by a pretender whom Margaret had mentored and supported, England might become a reliable insurance against future aggression by either of Burgundy’s powerful neighbours.
Therefore, Margaret, just like Maximilian, had her own political reasons to support the pretenders.
Langley invites us to question everything and beware the biases of Tudor propaganda. Such scepticism can be healthy but, by the same token, we should apply the same degree of scepticism when considering the propaganda of Maximilian and Margaret. To do otherwise is to treat evidence with double standards.
Conclusions – the Thornton Research
There is nothing that much inherently ‘new’ about Thornton’s research. The connection between the Capell family and the chain of Edward V was already known. However, what Thornton has done is to re-evaluate this information and draw it together. In doing so he paints a clearer picture of More’s connections to the men who, he claimed, murdered the princes.
However, this evidence remains circumstantial. It can be used to demonstrate that More had connections to sources who would have known the details of the princes’ murder (assuming More’s story is true). That, however, does not necessarily prove that these men were More’s sources. Nor can it discount the possibility that More falsified his narrative.
All Thorton achieves is to show us that More’s story can be regarded as more credible than was previously the case. But does it prove murder? Certainly not.
Conclusions – Evidence from the Dutch Research Group
As with the Thornton research, some of this new evidence is not really that new. The testimony of Richard of Shrewsbury has been known about for some time. Whilst it is useful to have it authenticated as being of the period, this alone does not address the more serious doubts concerning its authenticity. It is still potentially nothing more than a piece of fraudulent propaganda.
The evidence showing Maximilian supported the pretenders also doesn’t tell us anything new. We already knew he supported them. The fact remains that he had his own political reasons for doing so. This makes any evidence originating from his court subject to bias.
One genuinely new piece of information of significance relates to the identification of the pretender known as Lambert Simnel. Here we have contemporary evidence, for the first time, that at least some of his supporters identified him as Edward V. Previously, he had only ever been identified as Edward of Warwick or Richard of Shrewsbury.
Overall, we can say that the Dutch research raises some interesting questions about how Simnel’s supporters regarded him. It certainly highlights a need for more research in this area. But, does it constitute ‘proof of life’? Certainly not.
What Became of the Princes?
Ultimately, we still don’t know for certain what became of the Princes in the Tower. None of this new research gets us much closer to a definitive answer to this question. All we can say is that we can view More’s story as being more plausible than was previously the case. However, More’s account is still problematic and inconclusive. We can also now say that Lambert Simnel was identified as Edward V by at least some of his supporters. However, if we are being realistic, both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck remain far more likely to have been imposters than the real princes.
At the end of the day, we still only know for sure what we knew before. The princes disappeared in the summer of 1483 and, as far as we can tell, they were never seen again.
Keep up to date with our stories…
If you like reading our work and would like to keep up to date with the latest stories and news from our blog page, you can follow us on Facebook. We always announce any news and promote new stories as they are published here:
https://www.facebook.com/MedievalHistorian
If you found this article interesting, you might be interested in some of my other articles…
Imposter or Pretender – an overview of famous medieval pretenders
The Medici and the Italian Renaissance – Part 1
The Medici – Part 2 – Machiavellian Intrigue
References and Further Reading
Leaps of logic and forced conclusions: my take on Langley’s missing Princes: Royalhistorygeeks.com
Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess, Christine Weightman (Amberley, 2009)
Maximilian I, Hugh Trevor-Roper, (American Heritage, New York, 2017)
Revealing Richard III – Case Solved
The Fate of the Princes – Evidence (The History of England)
The Princes in the Tower: David Pilling on ‘The New Evidence’
Princes in the Tower, Richard III Society FAQs
The Princes in the Tower – The New Evidence, Channel 4
Images
Portrait of the Princes in the Tower by John Everett Millais, 1878 (via Wiki Commons)
Sir Thomas More, Portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1529 (via Wiki Commons)
Henry VII, bust taken from his death mask in 1509 by Pietro Torrigiani, Photo by Val McG (via Wiki Commons)
Maximilian I Portrait by Albrecht Durer, 1519 (via Wiki Commons)
Margaret of Burgundy, late C15th, Anon artist (via Wiki Commons)
The very fact Margaret and Maximilian were willing to back pretenders can be viewed as a sort of confirmation that they knew/had a good degree of certainty that Richard and Edward are indeed dead and would not eventually pop up to clear any confusion to their embarrassment.