You have 4 free articles remaining this month, Sign-up to our daily newsletter for more articles like this + access to 5 extra articles. Nevertheless, Richard wanted the Edwardian Yorkists to know the princes were dead so they would transfer their loyalties to him. If the princes were alive in 1485, and they could have been, they would have been a great embarrassment to Henry, and Henry had as much to gain as Richard by the death of the young boys. The real reason Henry Tudor did not look for the princes' bodies is that he had his own reasons for wishing to forestall a cult. Henry did not announce that the boys had been murdered until July 1486, nearly a year after Richard’s death. And Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort, suggested how that might come about.

So why did Henry then do nothing in public to investigate the deaths of the princes? He was however, a devout man, even by the standards of the time, whose religious conviction is one of the aspects agreed upon by many of those who debate his motives and reputation.
Sir Thomas More states in his writings that the princes were buried “at the stair-foot, meetly deep” and certainly in 1674 two skeletons were found buried beneath a stone staircase during alterations at the Tower. Shakespeare certainly decided that he had given the order for the boys to be killed. Having the princes vanish suited Richard, for without a grave there could be no focus for a cult, and without bodies there would be no relics either. Henry then kept Warbeck alive long enough for him to publicly confess his modest birth. Richard III is the name most associated with the mystery of the two little princes. But Richard knew the princes would likely attract a cult with a far larger following than that for Henry, because in the murdered boys the religious qualities of royalty were combined with the innocence and purity of childhood. Henry did not base his right on her legitimacy but on divine providence. This was on the top of the hill still known as “Palmer’s (or pilgrim’s) Cross,” where the modern village of Blean overlaps Upper Harbledown. A thinking skills activity which encourages students to grapple with conflicting information about the infamous disappearances, and to reach a theory supported by evidence. Their uncle, Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III, came after them in the succession.

While it is generally accepted that he did not wield the knife in person, popular theories – and Shakespeare’s famous depiction – have his agents stealing into the Tower at dead of night and smothering the boys in their sleep. Four years later, they were reburied in the urn in Westminster Abbey by Charles II who had been persuaded to accept that the remains were the ‘Princes in the Tower’. In the 1483-4 city accounts, payments were listed for repairs to the road in advance of Richard’s visit. All that is known for certain is that the princes vanished in 1483. The skeletons aroused much interest and debate as they were believed by many historians to be the bones of the two princes who were reputedly murdered in the Tower of London in the 15th century.

Nothing was said, therefore, about the princes in 1485, beyond the vague accusation in Parliament that Richard III was guilty of "murders in shedding of infants' blood.". As Henry's enemies sought a figurehead to rally round, it was a question they took advantage of. He may have benefited, so he thought, from the boy’s deaths but gone on to undertake this atonement for the sake of his own soul. But even after Warbeck's execution in 1499, Henry continued to fear the emergence of other "pretenders.". A foreign visitor described men weeping in the streets as "day by day they began to be seen more rarely behind the bars" of the Tower's windows. Instead, he may have visited Canterbury Cathedral in order to make his peace with God. It is true Henry's blood claim to the throne was extremely weak. It was said he had died suddenly of "grief and rage" over the death of his son in battle. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. In his ‘history’, Sir Thomas More was quite sure that these young boys were murdered by their uncle Richard of Gloucester and Shakespeare also portrayed Richard III as the evil murderous uncle. It is likely we will never know exactly what happened to the princes, and so this will remain one of the most intriguing who-done-its of all time. Get the New Statesman's Morning Call email. She is the author of the forthcoming biography Anne Neville, Richard III’s Tragic Queen and her blog can be found here. In other words both were killed for being who they were: the sons of Edward IV. Of course he could not have openly bewailed their deaths in public, as this would necessitate confessing his guilt by association. A History mystery! Richard’s servant, James Tyrrell, who confessed to the murders during the reign of Henry VII, was in London early in September 1483, collecting clothing from the Tower for the investiture at York of Richard’s son, Edward, as Prince of Wales. Photograph: Getty Images. But Henry Tudor, who later became Henry VII in 1485 after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, had an even shakier claim to the throne.

And if he was guilty, why did Henry VII make no effort to launch an inquest into the deaths of the princes?

Londoners, remembering the fate of Henry VI, feared for the boys. In 1674, the skeletons of two children were recovered in the Tower of London in a place that resembled More's description of their first burial place. Yet he was determined not to be seen as a mere king consort to his wife. The bodies of deposed kings were put on public display with the claim they had died of natural causes (like "grief and rage") so the people could transfer their loyalty to the new king. The Princes in the Tower is an expression frequently used to refer to Edward V, King of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.The two brothers were the only sons of Edward IV, King of England and Elizabeth Woodville surviving at the time of their father's death in 1483. A document in the College of Arms, London, dating to around 1512, says the princes were killed "by the 'vise' [advice or device]" of a royal cousin of Margaret's, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. The truth emerged as I researched Tudor: The Family Story, but only when I stopped thinking like a 21st century person and began thinking like someone from the 15th century, when the murders took place. Perhaps it was even intended as such.
Back in the 1980s, Anne F Sutton identified that a visit Richard made to Canterbury soon after his reign must have taken place early in 1484. Amy Licence’s biography “Anne Neville, Richard III’s Tragic Queen” (Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about the recent excavations at Leicester. See why nearly a quarter of a million subscribers begin their day with the Starting 5. The mentally ill Lancastrian Henry VI was found dead in the Tower in 1471. He said one of the assassins, who could not bring himself to kill "so little a child," had helped him escape. Henry Tudor was in exile in Brittany, France, in 1483 when Edward IV died and Richard overthrew the princes to become Richard III. Undertaking research on Richard’s reign, I unearthed records of his activities in Canterbury, six months after the boys’ disappearance, which may offer evidence that the King had something weighty on his conscience. In Chaucer’s late 14th century work, The Canterbury Tales, the village was also known as “Bobbe-up-and-down,” due to the poor condition of its roads. It would have been unwise to allow Yorkist royal saints to compete with the memory of Henry VI, whose cult Henry VII now encouraged. It is even possible Buckingham was acting on Margaret's advice, as she hoped to clear the way for her son. Last seen in early July 1483, the boys vanished from sight after being declared illegitimate in a sermon preached by Dr Shaa at St Paul’s Cross, just days before Richard became king. Well, it is possible Henry feared this would draw attention to a role in the murders played by someone close to his cause. Warbeck led three attempts to invade England before he was captured in 1497.

Sir Thomas More states that the princes were smothered with the pillows on their beds by Sir James Tyrell, John Dighton and Miles Forest. But was he really the child murderer he is painted as in the history books? There were, however, other theories attached to the Princes in the Tower. It has inspired generations of readers to join the Richard III Society, which campaigns for a reassessment of Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III.

It was the primary, even religious duty of a good king to ensure the nation was united. Meanwhile, the tomb of "saint" Henry VI had come to rival in popularity that of Thomas Becket at Canterbury, one of the top three pilgrimage sites in Europe.

But More's history was inaccurate and biased, written as it was during the reign of Henry VIII - the son of Richard's archrival, Henry VII, the first Tudor king who won the crown, after defeating Richard on the battlefield.

Records in Canterbury could hold a clue to the king’s role in his nephews’ demise. Henry said the young man was, in fact, a Dutchman, Perkin Warbeck, who was in the pay of foreign powers. It is the disappearance of the princes that lies at the heart of centuries of conspiracy theories about what exactly happened to them. Under the aegis of visiting the port of Sandwich, Richard stayed in the city, being offered £33 6s 8d in gold, contributed by the mayor, councillors and “the better sort of persons of the city,” although he did not accept it. Until then, he was busy dealing with Buckingham’s rebellion, establishing his new royal household and preparing for his first parliament. It is more likely, though, that he stayed in “large temporary buildings around a great tent called le Hale” on the edge of Blean forest, elsewhere called the Pavilion on the Blean. Did Richard III Kill the Princes in the Tower? Whoever they are, we might remember how the princes murdered in the Tower were denied any decent burial at all, while a grand tomb to house Richard III's remains is currently being built in Leicester Cathedral. Buckingham may have encouraged Richard to have the princes murdered, hoping to see the House of York extinguished and that of Lancaster restored, with Henry Tudor, or himself, as king. But equally, if the princes were dead, why did Richard not follow the example of earlier royal killings? Just as the devout did in Walsingham, many pilgrims removed their shoes in Harbledown, or “hobble-down” for the final mile and walked, penitent and barefoot, down the hill to Becket’s shrine. Traditionally, visiting monarchs would reside in the well-appointed, central Archbishop’s Palace or at St.Augustine’s Abbey, as Henry VIII frequently did and Elizabeth would do in 1573. However, even if royal permission were granted for the extensive DNA testing required, this would only prove the fact of their deaths, rather than the names of the perpetrators. | Culture, King Richard III's skull is seen next to a portrait of him during a news conference in Leicester. Mad king Henry VI had been popularly acclaimed a saint, with miracles reported at the site of his modest grave in Chertsey Abbey, Surrey. However, while undertaking research for my biography of Richard III’s wife, I discovered information that could imply their uncle’s guilt. The true story of the unfortunate boys’ murder(s) when they were aged twelve and nine will probably never be known. Either Richard III killed them, or they died under his watch. The Lieutenant of the Tower, who controlled access to the princes, was totally loyal to Richard. The princes were Edward V and his brother Richard Duke of York, the sons of Edward IV and his Queen, Elizabeth Woodville. But few doubted that Edward IV ordered Henry's murder. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. One of the potential murderers listed is Sir James Tyrell, King Richard’s servant, who some people say confessed under torture that he killed the princes in the tower, as he was ordered. In 1491 a young man appeared in Ireland claiming to be the younger of the Princes in the Tower.