The Princes in the Tower, page 10
And shortly he imprisoned his lord King Edward V, king in deed but not crowned, together with his brother Richard who had been taken from Westminster on the promise of safety. In this way it was afterwards known to very few by what manner of death they had suffered. The usurper King Richard III then ascended the throne of the slaughtered children whose protector he was himself.75
Rous’ account ignores the illegitimacy of the princes and the 1484 Act of Parliament (see Chapter 6) and follows the foreign theme that both boys died prior to Richard’s coronation. Though Richard is accused of imprisoning them, he is not named as the perpetrator of their presumed deaths. The Tower as a location is perhaps implied, since Rous also mentions the imprisonment of both boys and the promise of safety as a condition of Richard of York’s emergence from sanctuary to join his brother. This was made by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury (although Rous does not name him). Bourchier had died in 1486.
Rous adds what may be new information – that the manner of death was known to ‘very few’. It is not clear whether this means at the time of writing or at the time of the ‘slaughter’. This suggests the new Tudor regime had not yet disseminated an agreed story about the events which led to the boys’ apparent deaths. It might also mean that Rous assumed those at the top of government knew ‘what manner of death they suffered’ but were keeping it from public consumption, or it had somehow been implied that they knew. Either way, nothing has been found in official records of this period.
25 April 1496
Spanish investigations were conducted in Setúbal, Portugal, pursuant to Spain negotiating for Catherine of Aragon to marry Henry VII’s heir, while demanding that there must be no living pretender to the English throne. Testimonies about a young man claiming to be the Duke of York were taken from witnesses, with the Portuguese Ambassador Rui de Sousa first to be interrogated. The notary recorded:
And then he [de Sousa] heard it said that they had put him [York] and his brother too, the Prince of Wales, in a fortress where a body of water passed by, and that they bled them, and they died from the forced bleeding.76
As de Sousa had been Ambassador to England from 1481 to 1489 it is unclear why he didn’t name the Tower of London, unless he believed it to be another location. He did not indicate why the boys would have been bled – generally an indication of illness. It is further uncertain if de Sousa was suggesting a deliberate or accidental death.
1500
Our next source comes from the Burgundian chronicler, Jean Molinet. Edward and Richard are called ‘Pierre’ and ‘George’. Molinet writes:
They were prisoners for about five weeks; and through the Captain of the Tower, the Duke Richard had them secretly killed and made to disappear. Some say that he took them to a large place and enclosed them with nothing to drink or eat. Others say that they were pressed between two quilts, sleeping in the same chamber. And when came the execution, Pierre, the eldest son, was sleeping, and the young one woke up, and when he realised the malicious deed, he started to say: ‘Ha, my brother, wake up, as one is coming to kill you!’ then he started to say to those who appeared, ‘why are you killing my brother? Kill me and let him live!’ Then one after the other were executed and killed, and their corpses were moved to some secret place; then they were recovered, and after the death of the King Richard were given royal funerals. The same day arrived in the Tower of London, the Duke of Buckingham, then misbelieved at having killed the said children, because he was pretending to the crown.77
[…]
Because of the said murder of his two nephews, and the other enormous and foul acts, the princes and noble of England, sovereignly those of the Church, rose against him and deployed the banner of Saint Gilbert, bishop; and many barons and knights that gathered to descend on France, worked at finding the corpses of the said children, born of royal blood. And when they were found, were interred in the Church of the Preachers in London; and then, entered the Royal Palace and imprisoned the Duke Richard; but he talked softly and promised so many beautiful gifts, that he escaped the hand of his enemies. Then after, more by force than love, he was crowned King of England, the day of Saint Michael, in one thousand four hundred and eighty two.78
[…]
The Count of Richmond seeing the King trampled on79 [vanquished], and that God gave him victory over a tyrant, took the oath in towns near London where he entered as a victor; and was received in a great triumph; and had a proclamation before his coronation published everywhere, that if there were a claimant to the crown by descent from the King Edward. He was to show himself; and he would help him to get crowned; but no soul appeared.80
There is a lot of information to unpick in Molinet’s chronicle. The boys were prisoners for ‘about five weeks’.81 Both were executed in the Tower by Richard, as duke, and this was done through the ‘Captain of the Tower’.82 We have a murder committed by starvation or smothering between quilts (mattresses or cushions). Starvation takes place in a ‘large place’. The bodies were buried in a secret place, but following King Richard’s death they were recovered and given royal funerals. The murder incites the rebellion against Richard. Those who rebelled and went to France returned, searched for the bodies, found them and buried them in the ‘Church of the Preachers in London’ (i.e., medieval St Pauls).83 ‘Duke Richard’ was alive at the time of the burial and was then crowned king. His coronation took place in 1482. Buckingham arrived at the Tower at the time of the murders but was incorrectly implicated in the crime due to his pretensions to the crown.
This is an important account to disentangle because it contains new information about an apparent proclamation published everywhere before Henry’s coronation, allegedly seeking to find any male descendants of Edward IV. Although it seems to undermine the chronicler’s earlier information regarding murder, significantly, it offers the first account of any public statement made by Henry in respect of the princes, circulated in and around London. The proclamation was issued prior to Henry’s coronation and suggests that at this time (September–October 1485), it was assumed Edward V (or some other offspring) was alive, or thought to be alive (see Chapter 12).
1502
Our next source is Bernard André, Henry VII’s court poet and tutor to Arthur, Prince of Wales.84 Originally from Toulouse in France, André arrived in England after Henry VII’s accession and was invited to write the new king’s biography, in which he says:
Richard, then, who had been called and declared Protector by the king, concealing the tyrannical plan he had in mind, at first ordered his nephews to be summoned from Wales. But Queen Elizabeth, King Edward’s prudent wife, took care for herself and her children and sought sanctuary in a sacred place. What more can I say? After the tyrant, safe in his London stronghold, slew the lords he knew were faithful to his brother, he ordered that his unprotected nephews secretly be dispatched with the sword.85
Like Carmeliano, Rous, Allertzs and Molinet, André follows the French/Rochefort line, asserting that the boys were ‘dispatched’ prior to Richard’s accession. Following Carmeliano, we are again given the method of the sword (shorthand for a violent death). This was carried out at Richard’s command and undertaken in secret. No speculation regarding who committed the act (either rumoured or surmised) is offered. André’s account may suggest information (or rumour) circulating at King Henry’s court, although we must note, once again, this appears in no official record.
1502–03
London merchant Richard Arnold published a book, which included some brief city annals. For 1483, he recorded, ‘This year deceased the king, in April, entering into the twenty-third year of his reign, and the two sons of King Edward were put to silence. And the Duke of Gloucester took upon him the crown in July [sic].’86
1508
Richard Pynson’s Magna Carta cum aliis Antiquis Statutis was published in London. This presumes the date of Edward V’s death as 22 June 1483 and place of burial, the Tower of London.87
Henry VII died on 21 April 1509.
The Reign of Henry VII: Summary
What is perhaps of most interest following the death of King Richard is the lack of any official record or statement concerning the disappearance or fate of the princes. Henry VII failed to order any recorded enquiry or make use of the national platform his first Parliament (or subsequent Parliaments) afforded. This would have secured his reign (by right of conquest) and quelled any potential future uprisings (two Yorkist pretenders emerged in 1486 and 1491). In contrast, the Burgundian chronicler Molinet relates that a proclamation was made by Henry in September–October 1485, prior to coronation. No known copy of this exists but searches are ongoing.
At this point, our intelligence gathering suggests that rumours were allowed to take hold, or deliberately spread, at or around the time of Henry’s first Parliament in November 1485. These rumours supported existing foreign accounts of the princes meeting an untimely end. No account of the princes’ demise existed at this time from an English writer.
Henry’s proclamation, uniquely mentioned by Molinet, may also explain the lack of any indictment in his Parliament. Having proclaimed the possibility that Edward V was alive (if a genuine invitation for his rival claimants to come forward), Henry might look somewhat foolish or, at best, badly informed (see Chapter 10). Crowland now reported his recollection that ‘a rumour arose’ at the time of the October uprising but this was not recorded at Bristol, a port involved in the rebellion.
During Henry’s reign, the boys are said to have been killed by poison, starvation, smothering or the sword (violent death) or by being bled. Molinet relates that the bodies were found by those returning from France (i.e., Henry and his rebels) and given a royal burial in (probably) St Paul’s Church in London. No known English record of this discovery, or burial, exists.
One account (1508) mentions burial in the Tower of London. The date of both murders is variously recorded in unofficial texts as taking place before King Richard’s coronation on 6 July 1483, including Molinet. Confusingly, Molinet adds, ‘They were prisoners for about five weeks.’ Five weeks from 16 June (when Richard of York joined Edward V at the Tower) takes us to 21 July and the abduction attempt.
We will now place under the microscope our next important timeline. This will take us to 1603 and the end of the Tudor dynasty.
The Tudor Dynasty Continued: 1509–1603
In the spring of 1509, Henry VII was succeeded by his only surviving son, Henry VIII (d. 1547). Henry was followed by Edward VI (d. 1553), Mary I (d. 1558) and Elizabeth I (d. 1603).
Around 1512
The next source is The Great Chronicle of London. The Great Chronicle was an account of events in the capital recorded for each mayoral year. Mayoral years ran from 29 October to 28 October. In around 1496, the Great Chronicle came into the hands of Robert Fabyan, who inserted entries post-1438 where it had left off. He then continued work on it from 1502–12 – it is this final 1512 manuscript which survives.88
In the mayoral year of October 1482 to October 1483, York’s transfer to the Tower is recorded as follows, ‘Whom the said protector conveyed straight unto the king, where both were well treated within the king’s lodging being within the Tower, a certain of time after.’
Following Gloucester’s request for the northern force, and prior to the sermons announcing the illegitimacy of Edward’s children (22 June), the Chronicle adds, ‘And after this were the prince & the duke of York held more straight [closely]’.89
It then records, ‘And during this mayor’s year, The children of king Edward were seen shooting & playing In the garden of the Tower by sundry times [meaning on separate, different occasions]’.90
For the next mayoral year of October 1483–October 1484, the Great Chronicle records, ‘But after Easter much whispering was among the people that The king had put the Children of king Edward to death.’91
For the first mayoral year of Henry VII, from 29 October 1485 to 28 October 1486, the Great Chronicle has this to say:
Considering the death of king Edward’s children, Of whom as men feared openly to say that they were Rid out of this world, But of their manner of death was many opinions, for some said they were murdered between ii feather beds, Some said they were drowned In malmsey and some said they were stikked with a Venomous potion. But how so ever they were put to death, Certain It was that before that day [Henry Tudor’s invasion] they were departed from this world, Of which Cruel deed sir James Tyrell was Reported to be the doer. But others put that weight upon an old servant of king Richard’s named ____ [name left blank].92
According to the chronicle, the children were well treated and then held more straitly. After October 1483 they had disappeared. It was rumoured the following Easter (Sunday, 18 April 1484) that King Richard had put them to death. As the chronicle describes the children shooting and playing in the Tower garden, it seems explicit that the rumours of murder referred to the two princes. The ‘children’ were said to have been smothered between two feather beds, drowned in Malmsey wine or ‘stikked’ (put out/stifled) with a poison.
Significantly, we are also given a new alleged perpetrator, Sir James Tyrell (executed in 1502). This is what the compiler in London, Robert Fabyan, was able to recall by 1512. The Great Chronicle reported the rumours of the princes’ deaths arose at Easter 1484 and not, as Crowland indicated, during the October uprising of 1483. Easter is an important and notable time of year. This suggests that the October uprising against King Richard may not have had a direct connection with the disappearance (or deaths) of King Edward’s sons or was a new Tudor/rebel narrative following Bosworth. Searches of Town Accounts are ongoing in an attempt to corroborate Crowland’s account.
1513–19
A London citizen recorded in his notes for 1483,93 ‘Item: this year King Edward the vth, late called Prince Wales, and Richard duke of York his brother, King Edward iiij sons, were put to death in the Tower of London be the vise [advice or design] of the duke of Buckingham.’94 This is the first English allegation that the princes were put to death by the Duke of Buckingham, or on his advice.
1516
After reporting the accession of Richard III, Fabyan’s New Chronicles recorded, ‘In which pass time the prince, or of right king Edward the v., with his brother the duke of York, were put under sure keeping within the Tower, in such wise that they never came abroad after.’95
1517
The next account comes from the Dutch Divisie Chronicle. Written in 1500, it was published in 1517:
… they were trusted to the care of the Earl [sic] of Buckingham. Now some would say that the Duke of Gloucester their foresaid uncle made them starve to become king himself. Some others will say that the Duke of Buckingham killed these children hoping to become king himself … And some say that this Henry Earl of Buckingham killed only one child and spared the other which he had lifted from the font and had him secretly out of the country. This child was called Richard … The Duke of Gloucester, these two children being thus secretly hidden and put out of the way, made himself King of England, and ordered the foresaid Henry Earl of Buckingham to be killed as a traitor.96
Buckingham is again implicated, with Gloucester secretly hiding both children so they are ‘put out of the way’. This is the second time the survival of either of the princes is suggested (following Molinet’s alleged proclamation).
1524
Our next chronicle source originates in France from the work of Philippe de Commynes. Commynes was a former Councillor to the courts of Burgundy and France. He completed his Mémoires in about 1491, reporting events in England. They were published in 1524:97
The duke had his two nephews murdered and made himself king, with the title King Richard … as soon as King Richard had had his two nephews cruelly murdered, as I said before, he lost his wife.98
He signed his letters ‘Richard’ and he had the two sons of his brother, Edward, put to death … the duke of Gloucester had done homage to his nephew as his king and sovereign lord: then immediately he had committed this murder … King Richard did not last long, nor did the duke of Buckingham who had put the two children to death.99
This alleges that Gloucester had his nephews murdered so he could become king, with Buckingham named as the perpetrator of the killing (not merely by his advice, see the London citizen report mentioned previously).
1529
Our next account comes from John Rastell in London. Rastell was an author, printer and publisher, and brother-in-law of Thomas More. Rastell writes:
… the said protector, by the council of the duke of Buckingham, as it was said, caused this young king and his brother to be conveyed to ward [guarded or kept safe]; which were never after seen but there put to death.
But of the manner of the death of this young king, and of his brother, there were divers opinions; but the most common opinion was, that they were smothered between two featherbeds, and that, in the doing, the younger brother escaped from under the featherbeds, and crept under the bedstead, and there lay naked a while, till that they had smothered the young king, so that he was surely dead; and, after this, one of them took his brother from under the bedstead, and held his face down to the ground with his one hand, and with the other hand cut his throat bolle [throat-ball – Adam’s apple] a souder [asunder] with a dagger. It is a miracle that any man could have so hard a heart to do so cruel a deed, save only that necessity compelled them, for they were so charged by the duke, the protector, that if they showed not to him the bodies of both those children dead, on the morrow after they were so commanded, that then they themselves should be put to death. Wherefore they that were so commanded to do it, were compelled to fulfil the protector’s will.
