Princes in the Tower
Aged 12 and 9 years old, respectively, they were lodged in the Tower of London by their paternal uncle and England's regent, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, in preparation for Edward V's forthcoming coronation.
As a result, several other theories about their fates have been proposed, including the suggestion that they were murdered by their kinsman the Duke of Buckingham, their future brother-in-law King Henry VII, or his mother Lady Margaret Beaufort, among others.
The following morning, Gloucester arrested Edward's retinue including the boys' uncle, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, and their half-brother Sir Richard Grey.
[3] Gloucester then took possession of the prince himself, prompting Elizabeth Woodville to take her other son, Richard, Duke of York, and her daughters into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey.
On Sunday 22 June, a sermon was preached by Dr. Ralph Shaa, brother of the Lord Mayor of London, at Saint Paul's Cross claiming Gloucester to be the only legitimate heir of the House of York.
[14] Clements Markham suggests the princes may have been alive as late as July 1484, pointing to the regulations issued by Richard III's household which stated: "the children should be together at one breakfast".
In January 1484, Guillaume de Rochefort, Lord Chancellor of France, urged the Estates General to "take warning" from the fate of the princes, as their own king, Charles VIII, was only 13.
[16] The early reports, including that of Rochefort, Philippe de Commines (French politician), Caspar Weinreich (contemporary German chronicler) and Jan Allertz (Recorder of Rotterdam), all state that Richard killed the princes before he seized the throne (thus before June 1483).
[27] Four years after their discovery,[3] the bones were placed in an urn and, on the orders of King Charles II, interred in Westminster Abbey, in the wall of the Henry VII Lady Chapel.
"[29] The bones were removed and examined in 1933 by the archivist of Westminster Abbey, Lawrence Tanner; a leading anatomist, Professor William Wright; and the president of the Dental Association, George Northcroft.
[36] In the late 1990s, work was being carried out near and around Edward IV's tomb in St George's Chapel; the floor area was excavated to replace an old boiler and also to add a new repository for the remains of future Deans and Canons of Windsor.
[37] The 2012 discovery of the remains of Richard III has prompted renewed interest in re-excavating the skeletons of the "two princes", but Queen Elizabeth II never granted the approval required for any such testing of an interred royal.
[38] In 2022, Tracy Borman, joint chief curator of Historic Royal Palaces, stated that King Charles III held "a very different view" on the subject and could potentially support an investigation.
[39] Four unidentified bodies have been found which are considered possibly connected with the events of this period: two at the Tower of London and two in Saint George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.
Raphael Holinshed, in his Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, written in 1577, reports that Richard, "what with purging and declaring his innocence concerning the murder of his nephews towards the world, and what with cost to obtain the love and favour of the communal tie (which outwardlie glosed, and openly dissembled with him) ... gave prodigally so many and so great rewards, that now both he lacked, and scarce with honesty how to borrow".
Tyrrell, an English knight who fought for the House of York on many occasions, was arrested by Henry VII's forces in 1502 for supporting another Yorkist claimant to the throne.
This version of events is accepted by Alison Weir[49] and Hicks notes that his successful career and rapid promotion after 1483 "is consistent with his alleged murder of the princes".
[3] Clements Markham suggested that More's account was actually written by Archbishop Morton and that Tyrrell was induced to do the deed by Henry VII between 16 June and 16 July 1486, the dates of two general pardons that he received from the king.
[58][59][60][61] In line with this contemporary opinion many current historians, including David Starkey,[41] Michael Hicks,[62] Helen Castor[63] and A. J. Pollard[64] regard Richard himself as the most likely culprit.
Not wanting the legitimacy of his wife or her claim as heir of Edward IV called into question, prior to the marriage he had repealed the Titulus Regius which had previously declared the princes (and Elizabeth) illegitimate.
Some scholars have instead accused John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII's mother), or Jane Shore (Edward IV's mistress).
The Beaufort theory was supported by Philippa Gregory in a 2013 BBC documentary series The Real White Queen and her Rivals,[84] However, it has been sustained only by speculation about a possible motive, rather than evidence.
[85] Historian David Baldwin suggests that Henry VII's reticence on the subject may have been because at least one of the princes was still alive; he considers that Richard is more likely to have survived, with Edward dying of a malady.
[86] Baldwin argues that it is "impossible" that no one knew what happened to the Princes after they entered the Tower;[87] he believes Richard III and Henry VII, leading courtiers and their mother would all have known the boys' whereabouts and welfare.
[94] Baldwin suggested that by having removed them from sight to prevent them being a focus for opposition, he was then unable to bring them back to court to scotch rumours of their murder without once again having them become a threat.
[101] Researcher John Dike noted Yorkist symbols and stained glass windows depicting Edward V in a Coldridge chapel commissioned by Evans and built around 1511, unusual for the location.
The accounting receipt confirmed that weapons (400 pikes) purchased by Maximilian for the Yorkist invasion of June 1487 was on behalf of the elder son of Edward IV.
[103] This new evidence was presented in the UK on Channel 4 in an original 1 hour 45-minute "Factual Special" documentary, The Princes in the Tower (18 November 2023, Brinkworth Productions, Dir: Janice Sutherland).
[111] Bennett suggested that perhaps those who had initially supported Richard in his seizure of power may have felt complicit in the crime, which he thought "might explain the bitterness of the subsequent recriminations against him".
[113] Their defection severely weakened Richard, who had to impose his supporters among the northern lords as officeholders in the southern counties to maintain order, in itself a very unpopular act that further damaged his reputation.
