The Princes in the Tower, page 12
King Richard’s Parliament ran from 23 January to 20 February 1484. The text from the Parliament roll was copied by Buc. The roll of 1484 recorded, ‘Also it appeareth that all the issue of the said king Edward be bastards and unable to inherit or claim anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.’127
Conclusion
A broad-brushstroke analysis of materials in England concerning the disappearance of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, suggests that during Richard III’s reign both boys were alive. A later chronicler asserts that a public declaration (of innocence) was made by King Richard around 23 January to 20 February 1484. During the reign of Henry VII, the princes were said to be put to death by Richard (as duke), although no official record, statement or proclamation condemning the Yorkist king was made. Henry’s first Parliament offered an oblique reference to ‘the shedding of infants blood’ but did not touch upon regicide.
In and around London, prior to his coronation on 30 October 1483, Henry Tudor is said to have issued a proclamation challenging any offspring of Edward IV to come forward if alive. During Henry’s reign and after his death, murder becomes the popular report,128 either by Richard (as king) or the Duke of Buckingham (whether by design or advice).
The date of death for Edward V was given as either 22 or 26 June 1483. Evidence (as previously shown) suggests that Edward was alive at this time. Thomas More records rumours of survival but relates the death of both boys around 8–13 August 1483, while uniquely claiming that Sir James Tyrell confessed to organising it; Vergil locates their deaths in September 1483 (when King Richard was at York); Crowland and a (private) letter from Thomas Langton, Bishop of St David’s, suggest both boys were alive on or around 20 September 1483 when Richard left York; The Great Chronicle of London believed the princes disappeared on or by 28 October 1483.
A chronicler in the Low Countries described the survival of the younger prince, another that both sons (and a daughter) had been ‘expelled from England’ following the death of Edward IV. Editions of Vergil recorded a common belief in the survival of both boys, who had secretly travelled abroad. Following the demise of the Tudor dynasty, one or both princes were said to have survived and been sent overseas during King Richard’s reign.129
Our intelligence gathering exposes a significant trend in England. This can be summarised as:
Maintained – Murdered (duke) – Murdered (king) – Maintained
The Missing Princes Project’s key period of investigation is now extended to 1509 (King Henry’s death). This will allow scrutiny of the period covering the two pretenders to Henry’s throne: ‘Lambert Simnel’ (1486–87) and ‘Perkin Warbeck’ (1491–99) – see Chapters 12 and 14.
A further trend reveals how allegations among foreign sources were transferred to England following the invasion of French and rebel forces with the pretender, Henry Tudor, in 1485.130 During Henry’s reign, this was further supported by key foreign nationals at his court (Carmeliano, André and Vergil). In relation to foreign and Tudor allegations that the princes were put to death and a crime committed, it is of equal importance that we now also consider all potential suspects.
6
The Suspects
Means, Motive, Opportunity, Proclivity to Kill
An important trend uncovered in our investigation of sources reveals how foreign assertions of the deaths of the princes as a ‘known fact’ were transferred to England in 1485 following the invasion of French forces supporting Henry Tudor. The new certainties were supported by key foreign nationals who were given patronage at King Henry’s court. In respect of these foreign and Tudor allegations, it is important to examine all persons accused of being responsible. This will follow accustomed modern procedures: means, motive, opportunity and proclivity to kill analysis.
We will begin by examining hypotheses suggested in later times and conclude with the two main suspects put forward by the sources we examined earlier: Richard, Duke of Gloucester (as duke and king), and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.
Named Suspects from Later (Modern) Period
Although not documented in contemporary or near-contemporary accounts (see Chapter 5), we must consider all potential suspects. This may inform ongoing lines of investigation.
Dr John Argentine (c. 1443–1508)
John Argentine was a physician who began his medical practice at the royal court in 1478.1 Mancini reports that he was the last-known individual to attend Edward V, who believed that ‘death was facing him’. As a physician with access to poisons, Argentine had the means and the opportunity.2 We have no information regarding any proclivity to kill.
In 2021, crime writer and military historian Mei Trow proposed Argentine as the murderer of the princes, and of Prince Arthur (age 15), King Henry’s heir. Trow revealed that depression (as exhibited by Edward V) is a symptom of mercury poisoning, with Prince Arthur’s death being consistent with arsenic poisoning. Arthur is thought to have died of tuberculosis, but Trow uncovered no evidence to support this view. For motive, Trow posited that Argentine had a ‘God complex’ (similar to Dr Harold Shipman, a notorious British serial killer in the 1990s) and killed because he could.3
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (1443–1509)
Margaret Beaufort was descended from an illegitimate line of the House of Lancaster through an adulterous union between John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford (née de Roet). Gaunt was the third son of Edward III (see family tree on p. 11). Gaunt’s Beaufort offspring were legitimated in Richard II’s Parliament of 1397 and given rights to receive and pass on certain honours and dignities, but their barrier as bastards to any rights of inheritance was not lifted. Later, their exclusion from royal succession was cemented by edict of Henry IV, their half-brother.4
Henry Tudor was a Beaufort great-grandson and only child of Margaret Beaufort.5 Beaufort was wealthy and well connected, so had the means. She took part in the coronation of 6 July but did not join the royal progress north. Later Tudor accounts place her in London during the summer of 1483, so she may have had the opportunity.
A murder at this time rests on two propositions: Margaret Beaufort’s belief that Edward IV’s sons were the rightful heirs to the throne (thereby ignoring King Richard’s election and coronation) and a belief in the overthrow (and/or demise) of Richard and all legitimate Plantagenet heirs. Both events would open a path to the throne for her son.
Edward of Warwick, the king’s nephew, accompanied the royal progress to the north in 1483, so Beaufort had no access to this potential Plantagenet male line claimant.6 Warwick’s royal claim would come into force should a future Parliament reverse the 1478 attainder of his father, George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV’s brother.
Warwick was legitimate. As were the de la Poles (heirs of Edward IV’s sister), with no attainder and seven sons.7 At this remove, it seems Beaufort’s position as a suspect to a murder in 1483 is based on later reporting after King Richard’s death and a promotion of her role at this key time in Tudor histories.
It might be important to note Beaufort’s likely participation in the attempt to capture or remove the princes from the Tower in July 1483. On 13 August, her half-brother, John Welles, was arrested in Cambridge as ‘the king’s rebel’.8 In January 1486, Henry VII married Elizabeth of York and subsequently repealed the 1484 Act of Parliament ratifying the bastardy of Edward IV’s children. Thus, Edward’s sons (age 12 and 15), if alive, and now no longer bastardised, became an immediate threat to her son’s reign. From 23 January 1486, Beaufort had a clear motive.
Following Tudor’s successful invasion in the summer of 1485 and seizure of the Plantagenet children from the northern nurseries, Beaufort took the children into her London household for a short while (see Chapter 10). This was probably intended to assess them, put them at ease and gain intelligence. No children disappeared or were known to have been hurt at this time.
Shortly afterwards, one of the children, Edward of Warwick (10), an orphan, was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Warwick remained in the Tower for nearly fourteen years until his execution in 1499.
Margaret Beaufort was a skilled politician with an unwavering ambition to advance her son,9 but displayed no known proclivity to kill. At Warwick’s execution (a legal form of killing), he was a young adult (24). It was suggested he may have had learning issues.10 As she was a key advisor to Henry, we have no information regarding Beaufort’s stance on Warwick’s (orchestrated) trial and execution or whether she may have exerted any influence behind the scenes concerning the trials and executions in London during King Henry’s reign; similarly, for Tyrell’s trial and execution in 1502.
However, Beaufort wielded considerable power in the Midlands and north through her judicial court at Collyweston Palace in Northamptonshire, where she built a new prison. Signing herself ‘Margaret R’, Beaufort protected the new dynasty in the region, sending felons and those who had spoken against King Henry to London prisons.11
There is no evidence to suggest Beaufort was involved in any murders or considered a danger to children. It may, however, be important to note that following the demise of the Tudor dynasty, Cardinal John Morton was seen by Sir George Buc and members of his circle as a treacherous conspirator against the ruling house of York. Buc had read in an old manuscript book that ‘it was held for certain that Dr Morton and a certain countess’ conspired to use poison to do away with the princes. Buc’s editor (Kincaid) added, ‘the countess’ is ‘undoubtedly the Countess of Richmond [Beaufort]’.12
John Howard, Duke of Norfolk (1421–85)
John Howard was a Yorkist lord, soldier, ship owner and merchant. He was wealthy, so he had the means. Howard was in London for the coronation of King Richard, leaving on 19 July with the king and court on royal progress. As we have seen in Chapter 4, he returned to London for two weeks from 24 July to 11 August. He therefore had the opportunity.
Howard fought in many battles, so was able to kill. Battle and war, then as now, was an accepted form of killing, including the rout. If an enemy surrendered or was captured and killed without any form of summary trial (whether on the battlefield or elsewhere), it was considered murder.13 As a leading magnate and Earl Marshal of England, Howard took part in trials that resulted in execution. Howard was a respected figure who was loyal to both Yorkist monarchs.
In 1844, John Payne Collier noticed that Howard’s Household Books contained an entry for works at the ‘Tower’ on 21 May 1483. These included the purchase of two sacks of lime. Lime can be used to dissolve bodies. Collier suggested this may have had a sinister connotation.
A century later, in 1964, historian Melvyn J. Tucker used the household entry to propose Howard as the murderer of the princes. Tucker’s theory was also based on Howard’s motive to obtain the Norfolk dukedom and Mowbray estates from the younger prince, Richard of York (9), which, in Tucker’s view, required the boy’s death.
In 1980, historian Anne Crawford investigated Tucker’s hypothesis. Crawford revealed that Howard had little to do with the Tower of London at the time in question. In all likelihood, the ‘Tower’ was a house in Stepney, London, rented by Richard, Duke of Gloucester in 1483 and given to Howard later that year.
The timeline for the supposed murder was also problematic as the young Duke of York and Norfolk was in sanctuary. In addition, Howard’s inheritance of the dukedom and Mowbray estates did not require York’s death but the reversal of an Act of Parliament. Crawford concluded that, based on this and other contemporary evidence, Howard was not the perpetrator he was alleged to be.14 There is no evidence to suggest Howard was involved in any murders, or considered a danger to children.
Henry Tudor/Henry VII (1457–1509)
As mentioned in the context of his mother, Margaret Beaufort, the sons of Edward IV (if alive and no longer officially bastards) became a threat to King Henry after 23 January 1486 following the repeal of the 1484 Act of Parliament. As the victor at Bosworth, from 22 August 1485 Henry Tudor had the means and opportunity to dispose of the princes.
Henry was insecure and known for cruelty,15 but could also be merciful.16 Although he was present at the Battle of Bosworth, he is not known to have taken part in combat.17 Following his victory at Bosworth, Henry ordered a number of executions.18 There is no record of conviction by trial but no associated outrage either. A later local account from Leicester stated that the executions took place ‘without any ceremony or decency’.19
As king, Henry was responsible for many trials and executions but there is no evidence that he was involved in any murders (illegal killings or assassinations). The illegal capture of Sir James Tyrell by breach of the king’s safe conduct and his subsequent trial, which may have been orchestrated, indicates a degree of ruthlessness that might attract such an accusation, as does Warwick’s execution, generally held to have been on a manufactured charge.20 On the available data, Henry was not considered to be a danger to children,21 although his incarceration of Warwick for fourteen years can certainly be viewed as severe.22
Conclusion
The brief evaluation of suspects suggested by the later commentators discussed offers a potential motive to Henry VII and his mother after 23 January 1486. At this time, the princes were 12 and 15 and no longer classed as bastards. As Edward V had reached his majority at the age of 14, he was, by November 1484, legally an adult.
No further information regarding the death (or trial) of King Richard’s bastard son in the Tower of London in 1499 currently exists. This is thought to have been John of Gloucester. John would have been in his late twenties.23 Without further evidence, Argentine remains a person of interest but not a suspect.
Named Contemporary Suspects
We will now consider Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Richard III), both named as suspects in the alleged murder of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, in foreign and Tudor reports.
Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham (1455–83)
Henry Stafford was a royal duke descended from Edward III through the male Plantagenet line ( junior branch). He was married to Katherine Woodville, Edward V’s aunt. They had four children. His home and affinity were in Wales and the west. As a royal duke, he was wealthy so he had the means. He was present in London during the spring–summer of 1483 so had the opportunity. Buckingham was not present on the king’s progress.24 More’s narrative reports he joined it at Gloucester (2 August), where he and Richard parted on good terms.25
At this time, Buckingham was Constable of England (appointed 15 July), so he had the power to pass a sentence of execution.
By early October, he had joined the uprising against King Richard. He had no military experience and did not fight in battle, possibly due to his youth (at the time of the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury in 1471 he was 15). In 1475, Buckingham joined Edward IV’s invasion of France, which suggests he was prepared to fight, although no military engagement took place. He did not join Edward IV’s wars against Scotland.
Although he was distanced from Edward IV and excluded from court, in 1478 Buckingham read the death sentence at the trial of George, Duke of Clarence, a duty for which Edward IV had made him High Steward.
The motive attributed to Buckingham for murdering the princes is ambition: to further his own claim to the crown.26 This motive ignores the illegitimacy of Edward IV’s children and the prior claims of the other senior line Plantagenet children. There is no evidence to suggest Buckingham had any sinister intent towards Clarence’s heir, Edward of Warwick (8).
It might be significant that following his rebellion against Richard, Buckingham was tried and executed on Edward V’s thirteenth birthday (2 November 1483). It was a Sunday. It was unusual for an execution to take place on the holy day of the week. Edward V’s birthday was also All Soul’s Day, when the dead were remembered.
It is not known if execution on this day meant anything – whether to send a message of swift punishment for his recent betrayal, any pretensions to the throne27 or for anything that may have involved Edward V and Richard of York in London (perhaps abduction or something more disturbing). This latter view seems unlikely as Buckingham could have been arrested and tried at any point but remained trusted by the king and government. News of his rebellion in October 1483 came as a significant and unexpected shock.28
There is no evidence to suggest Buckingham was involved in any murders or considered a danger to children.
Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Richard III) (1452–85)
Richard, Duke of Gloucester was a royal duke descended from Edward III through two Plantagenet lines (Clarence and York, see family tree on p. 10). His home and affinity were in the north. He was wealthy, so he had the means. In 1483, he was present in London until 19 July, so he also had the opportunity.
Gloucester fought in battle, so was able to kill. As Constable of England and in several other judicial roles, he presided over trials and executions. Prior to the death of Edward IV, Gloucester was considered a loyal brother and commander. Following his death, he was reputed to be a murderer responsible for a number of deaths that were said to have been illegal, including Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan. As we have seen, these latter accusations failed to take into account Gloucester’s national role as Constable (see Chapter 3).
By some, he was also reputed to have assassinated Henry VI in May 1471.
Gloucester had returned from the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury with his personal bravery recorded; Henry was nearly 50 years old, frail and confused.29 The murder of an ageing individual in physical decline with a recognised mental condition suggests potential psychopathy in the perpetrator and is an important pointer for the investigation. It is necessary, therefore, to place the circumstances of Henry VI’s death under the microscope to see what this might reveal.
