In the last blog post, I demonstrated that circumstantial evidence strongly points toward Richard’s guilt; who else could really have overcome his defences and murdered the closely guarded Princes? Nonetheless the centuries that followed have spawned countless alternative theories, some of which are worthy of examination.
I have never pretended to be naïve as to the limitations of blogging; as such this post cannot present every theory in circulation. Those I have detailed below are – in my opinion – the most interesting, even if fundamentally flawed.
The Princes in the Tower were never killed – As I said in the previous post, I think this is most unlikely. These theories range from Richard stashing the Princes somewhere else to keep them out of sight, to a secret deal between Elizabeth Woodville and her brother-in-law to create secret identities in exchange for their lives. Others still, argue that someone sympathetic to the Princes managed to smuggle one or both from the Tower to safety. Many would identify the imposter Perkin Warbeck as Richard, Duke of York, believing that the younger boy had somehow managed to escape his uncle’s custody.
It’s a nice thought that the boys might have escaped murder. Sadly, it is little more than that. Had the Princes been alive, Richard would have produced them in order to quell rebellion against him. It was the belief that he was a child-killer that turned many from his cause. Similarly, demonstrating that the Princes lived would have extinguished the threat from Henry Tudor.
It would be wonderful if someone had managed to rescue the Princes – but how would they ever have been able to get past Richard’s men? Neither Croyland nor Mancini tell us of any armed raid on the Tower and it seems extremely unlikely that one of Richard’s loyal servants would have been part of any conspiracy. Also, as David Starkey argues, Elizabeth Woodville would never have entered into the pact that would see her daughter pledged in marriage to Henry Tudor so that they could take the throne together, unless she had been absolutely sure that her sons were dead.
I have deliberately decided not to include an analysis of the bones – strongly suspected to be those of the Princes – that were subsequently discovered in the Tower in 1674. I do not believe I have enough knowledge of the forensics to adequately comment. However, I will just say that the discovery of two skeletons, almost certainly those of children the same age as the Princes when they were said to have been killed, discovered exactly where Thomas More claimed they were buried, strongly adds weight to the argument that the boys met their end in 1483.
Henry VII, after his victory at Bosworth had the Princes murdered – The first Tudor King has throughout the years been named as an alternative suspect. But there are several problems with this. Firstly – and I refer readers to the paragraphs above – it relies on the Princes being alive until 1485, something which as I have demonstrated, seems unlikely. Perhaps even more importantly is the fact that Henry’s unease with pretenders such as Perkin Warbeck suggests he was not entirely clear on the fate of the Princes. Had he murdered them, he would have been.
Seeing an opportunity for her son, Margaret Beaufort had the Princes done away with in 1483 – This one has had something of a revival ever since the broadcast of the ‘White Queen’ in 2013. But it’s not viable. However much the Countess of Richmond was ambitious for her son, she would not have had access to the Tower.
The boys died of natural causes – This is largely based on the fact that Edward V was being visited by a physician while in the Tower (before Richard removed their attendants). Forensic investigations of the skeletons have shown some problems with the elder child’s jaw. But I’ve never known anyone die of jaw ache. Besides even if the elder boy had died, isn’t it a bit too convenient to think the younger had followed suit? Had this gift been handed to Richard, surely he would have made use of it.
The Duke of Buckingham did the deed to frame Richard – This is probably the best alternative theory, and often it is connected to his supposed desire to claim the crown for himself. It is certainly peculiar that Buckingham had been Richard’s staunchest supporter until he – somewhat suddenly – defected to join the rebels. It may have been him that spread the rumours that the Princes were dead. But could he have killed them? Some say that given his closeness to Richard he was the only person that could have gained access. But even in this scenario, the King would have found out pretty sharpish. Surely when he finally got his hands on the Duke he would have publicly accused him; in fact it would have been the perfect solution for Richard III. His rivals would have been confirmed as eliminated, without a trace of blood on his hands.
As I say, other theories exist but none as credible as the above. And none of the above have anywhere near the credibility of the theory I presented in the previous post.
All of this is circumstantial. But if we examined our hearts and minds honestly, we would have to conclude that Richard is the most likely suspect, even though it can’t be proved. If circumstantial evidence was all we had to rely on, it would be enough for me. However, thankfully we don’t. As we will see in the next post, we are fortunate enough to have a well-researched, authentic and honest account written about 20 years after the event which firmly and convincingly lays the blame at the door of the last Plantagenet King.
So geeks…it’s over to you. Have I underplayed the likelihood of one of these theories? Are there others that deserve consideration. Tell me what I’m missing. Let me know where you think I’m bang on the money…
The Duke of Buckingham may have tried to liberate the princes that summer with what Phillipa Gregory has inferred as Margaret Beaufort’s blessing, but RIII may have sent them up north to near Sheriff Hutton. They might have been inside York Minster when he was last there in the summer of 1483. https://vimeo.com/125739004 This mixes together alternatives to Theory One with Theory Three and Theory Five. One of the two princes (Perkin Warbeck) might have died at about the same time as the poor hapless son of George, Duke of Clarence. The other prince dies of old age, a natural cause. ( Lets humour the opposite of Theory Four!) Its a tooth abscess the older boy has, that the good doctor saw and closely examined, and perhaps lanced, but both youths survive past 1495. This if true actually gets Henry VII and James Tyrrell off of the hook metaphorically speaking for two direct and hideous acts of regicide at any point in time prior to the mid-1490s!.
Now as to the rumor Sir Thomas More heard and possibly wrote down. Between 1469 and the summer of 1471 the Tower of London changes hands several times, as events spin in a storm political like a weather vane. Warwick the Kingmaker assumed he could be a “king breaker” and there is a point where even he is in control of the Tower and Edward IV isn’t nor is Margaret of Anjou. Could one of the major “players” have done away with two young Plantagenet cousins to the three York brothers? 1471 is very close as a Carbon-14 date to 1485!
First off, according to reports, the doctor was treating a tooth problem that young Edward was having; it is not only possible that a tooth infection or something of its ilk could have killed someone in 1483, it happened with some frequency. My goodness, as late as the mid-20th century someone could die from a tooth abscess. So to dismiss someone dying from a ‘jaw ache’ is to dismiss 400 years of medical history. It happened, it could have happened then. That is not to say that I believe this is what happened, but I don’t believe it should be dismissed so out of hand. There is a theory that he did die from natural causes and Richard somehow got smuggled out to become Perkin Warbeck or the Richard Plantagenet buried in Eastwell, who claimed towards the end of his life to be an illegitimate son of Richard III. It is likely that Perkin Warbeck was a well trained impostor and Richard of Eastwell an illegitimate son of the King…but again, there are a lot of alternate theories.
The problem with assuming outright that Richard did it is that his direct involvement doesn’t make a lot of logical sense (unlike, in my opinion, Buckingham). He had already declared them illegitimate, justified or not that eliminated direct motive. If he feared them being alive as the center for opposition, why not do what had always been done in previous usurpation cases: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI..the exact manner of their deaths are unknown to us, but after their bodies were put on display. If Richard had the boys killed, why not then display them and say, here they are, they are dead. Why hide it? Especially when the rumor mill started shifting attention toward him. When rumors that he planned to marry Elizabeth of York turned the people against him he publicly denied it. Why then wouldn’t he publicly deny the death of the Princes? Again, I’m not saying he couldn’t have ordered it, I’m just saying that there are flaws in logic to make such broad assumptions that he did. I agree with you that I do not necessarily believe Henry VII had direct involvement, but he did have motive. The only way to legitimize his marriage to Elizabeth of York was to legitimize her, which he did, which also legitimized the boys. That’s mighty dangerous for a man who had an even more tenuous claim to the throne that Richard…and if he boldly overturned the act declaring them illegitimate, we can assume that he knew they were no longer a threat. And in a funny way, the princes haunted Henry VII’s reign far more than Richard’s. Richard faced rumor and unpopularity in the South. No pretenders, and no rebellion connected to them. Henry VII faced rumor, rebellion, and pretenders. One thing you can say, the two primary suspects certainly paid a price for their alleged involvement.
I think there are a lot of problems with Ricardians die hard belief that Richard was a saint as well as a problem with anti-Ricardians who outright assume he was a murderer (I’m looking at you Alison Weir). Nothing is that black and white, and it is problematic to try to place ourselves in the mindset of a late fifteenth century nobleman and soldier. Richard was certainly not a saint, nor is there evidence to suggest he was a conniving, murderous maniac. Like all things, the truth lie somewhere in between. The truth is we’ll never know what happened to them, which might suggest that their disappearance (death or otherwise) was handled extraordinarily haphazardly. Which might point the finger back at Buckingham (who had Royal blood and like many in his family had no real loyalty to anyone but himself). Surely if a professional soldier like Richard did it, it would have been done with more finesse; the same could be said of cunning figures like Henry VII and Margaret Beaufort. Richard, Henry VII, and Margaret Beaufort all benefited from their deaths, and Buckingham would have had things gone a bit better. Whoever knows…
Reese – wow! Thank you so much for engaging.
First of all, I agree that we can never truly know and despite the rather polemic tone of my blog series, my verdict is that Richard is the most likely subject rather than it being definite. Apparently the Richard III society is currently examining / exploring new evidence and I genuinely will look forward to reading that with an open mind when available.
I personally have never been keen on the tooth death theory. Mancini seems to have had contact with the doctor and despite getting a sense of the young lad’s emotional distress, doesn’t himself feel the need to link that to the rumoured death of the boys. And of course – as you allude – even if Edward V had died of natural causes that still leaves us with the problem of Richard, Duke of York.
Your point about the bodies is interesting. The problem of course is that it gets us into psychology and we have to second guess Richard’s actions. My personal theory (best guess) is that Richard wanted the Princes out the way (so that quite literally no one could snatch and crown them) but didn’t want to be associated with the death so didn’t ever produce the bodies. I’m afraid I don’t agree that they were no danger after the pre-contract story. No one believed it and Croyland is clear that rebellions came after this.
I agree with you that attempts to paint Richard either as a saint or pantomime baddie are unhelpful and take away from the debate. My thoughts on this are best summed up in my conclusion:
“Above all, please try and put fact above feeling. So much emotion surrounds this debate – but it needn’t. This question is fundamentally about trying to unearth the facts; it is not primarily a judgement on the character of the last Plantagenet King. Whatever else he was or wasn’t, Richard III was a medieval man who, like Edward IV and Henry VII, did things that would be abhorrent to us. He can never be entirely redeemed; nor should he be uncontextually condemned. Our job is to try and discover the truth. Let’s leave the judgement to someone else.”