afterwards, on the night of 21 May 1471, when Henry VI was murdered, and may have been responsible for that assassination too. Oddly, Shakespeare does not use that fact, when making Richard a regicide would have made his anti-hero an even more spectacular villain.
With that CV, Richard III was certainly capable of killing to maintain his position, but his family loyalties were intense and strong, and from that point of view it seems unlikely that he would have murdered his nephews. There is also the hint that history was repeating itself. As a nine-year-old politically significant and vulnerable young aristocrat, he was ‘disappeared’, secretly spirited out of the country for his own safety by a close relative. Did he perhaps do the same for his nine- and twelve-year-old nephews? Did he perhaps not have them murdered at all, but arrange their disappearance overseas?
If they had disappeared but survived, it would not have been in the Tudors’ interests for them to reappear. Richard III’s reign was short – a mere two years – and he was replaced at the Battle of Bosworth by the usurper Henry VII. Henry had even less title to the throne of England than Richard, and therefore had an even more powerful motive for removing the two princes than Richard. Henry VII’s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was a great schemer on her son’s behalf. When she heard of the reported death of the two princes, she was delighted because she supposed ‘that the deed would without doubt prove for the profit of the commonwealth.’ If it was known that the princes were alive during the Plantagenet-Tudor regime change, they would have been a focus for rebellion. The Crowland Chronicle says that it suited the Tudors to spread the rumour ‘that King Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate.’ In other words, it was actually said at the time that Henry Tudor and his supporters wanted the two princes to be dead, whether their fate was known or not. While the possibility that one or both of them were alive, Henry was not safe on his throne, simply because their right to it was stronger than his. For this reason, Henry Tudor (and his dynasty) promoted the idea that the two boys had died in the Tower – and at the hands of Henry’s predecessor.
If the princes were murdered in the Tower, they could have been killed at the orders of Richard III or Henry VII. Confirmation of their murder seemed to emerge during building work in the seventeenth century. Two small skeletons were found under a stone staircase and it was assumed that these must be the remains of the murdered Edward V and his younger brother. The bones were found in a complex of buildings running along the southern side of the White Tower, and later demolished; the site has been cleared.
Sir Thomas More gives the most detailed account of the alleged murder, and he says that the bodies were removed from the place where they were initially buried ‘at the stair foot’ to a better (ie more dignified) site by a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury, who then died taking the secret with him. But the position of the skeletons found in 1674 was ‘at the stair foot’, where they should no longer have been, which throws doubt on the rest of More’s account, if indeed the remains belonged to the two princes in the first place.
When the bones were subjected to forensic examination in 1933, the results were inconclusive. The skeletons seemed to be closer together in age than the two princes were, and there was a strong chance that they belonged to two girls. In 1933, there was no chance of radiocarbon dating the bones – the technique had not been invented – and a firm date might have helped to resolve the issue.
The problem becomes even more complicated by the earlier discovery, in 1603, of another pair of skeletons, which were also at the time assumed to be the remains of Edward V and his brother. The 1603 bones were found in the substantial
With that CV, Richard III was certainly capable of killing to maintain his position, but his family loyalties were intense and strong, and from that point of view it seems unlikely that he would have murdered his nephews. There is also the hint that history was repeating itself. As a nine-year-old politically significant and vulnerable young aristocrat, he was ‘disappeared’, secretly spirited out of the country for his own safety by a close relative. Did he perhaps do the same for his nine- and twelve-year-old nephews? Did he perhaps not have them murdered at all, but arrange their disappearance overseas?
If they had disappeared but survived, it would not have been in the Tudors’ interests for them to reappear. Richard III’s reign was short – a mere two years – and he was replaced at the Battle of Bosworth by the usurper Henry VII. Henry had even less title to the throne of England than Richard, and therefore had an even more powerful motive for removing the two princes than Richard. Henry VII’s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was a great schemer on her son’s behalf. When she heard of the reported death of the two princes, she was delighted because she supposed ‘that the deed would without doubt prove for the profit of the commonwealth.’ If it was known that the princes were alive during the Plantagenet-Tudor regime change, they would have been a focus for rebellion. The Crowland Chronicle says that it suited the Tudors to spread the rumour ‘that King Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate.’ In other words, it was actually said at the time that Henry Tudor and his supporters wanted the two princes to be dead, whether their fate was known or not. While the possibility that one or both of them were alive, Henry was not safe on his throne, simply because their right to it was stronger than his. For this reason, Henry Tudor (and his dynasty) promoted the idea that the two boys had died in the Tower – and at the hands of Henry’s predecessor.
If the princes were murdered in the Tower, they could have been killed at the orders of Richard III or Henry VII. Confirmation of their murder seemed to emerge during building work in the seventeenth century. Two small skeletons were found under a stone staircase and it was assumed that these must be the remains of the murdered Edward V and his younger brother. The bones were found in a complex of buildings running along the southern side of the White Tower, and later demolished; the site has been cleared.
Sir Thomas More gives the most detailed account of the alleged murder, and he says that the bodies were removed from the place where they were initially buried ‘at the stair foot’ to a better (ie more dignified) site by a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury, who then died taking the secret with him. But the position of the skeletons found in 1674 was ‘at the stair foot’, where they should no longer have been, which throws doubt on the rest of More’s account, if indeed the remains belonged to the two princes in the first place.
When the bones were subjected to forensic examination in 1933, the results were inconclusive. The skeletons seemed to be closer together in age than the two princes were, and there was a strong chance that they belonged to two girls. In 1933, there was no chance of radiocarbon dating the bones – the technique had not been invented – and a firm date might have helped to resolve the issue.
The problem becomes even more complicated by the earlier discovery, in 1603, of another pair of skeletons, which were also at the time assumed to be the remains of Edward V and his brother. The 1603 bones were found in the substantial
Similar Books
