The Princes in the Tower, page 15
In addition, following the death of Richard’s queen in March 1485, both Spain and Portugal entered marriage negotiations with King Richard. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain offered their eldest daughter and King John II of Portugal offered his sister, the Holy Princess Joanna.68 The Portuguese monarchy, by virtue of the marriage of John of Gaunt’s daughter to King John I, was the senior legitimate royal Lancastrian line. The planned marriage between Richard and Joanna would, therefore, unite the Houses of York and Lancaster. As we considered earlier, it’s also important to note that the Spanish monarchs, for whatever reason, failed to accept Edward IV’s heir as a potential royal spouse for one of their daughters (see Chapter 2).
Finally, it is perhaps significant, in terms of our enquiries, to consider one further point. Early in Henry VII’s reign, when he would have welcomed any proof that the pre-contract was a slanderous lie, he chose to destroy and suppress it rather than openly challenge and disprove it. Henry’s actions demonstrate that he lacked the evidence to refute Edward IV’s Talbot marriage. His heavy-handed approach shows that it was too dangerous to investigate the matter further and his own claim to the throne rested on a policy of ruthless censorship.
From the documentary evidence presented, it is clear that Richard III was the legal King of England. He was petitioned and elected by the Lords, Church and Commons, otherwise known as the ‘Three Estates of the Realm’, which formed a Parliament when convened in session by a monarch.
Consequently, in terms of our enquiries, Richard, as duke and king, had no clear motive to murder his nephews, Edward V (12) and Richard, Duke of York (9). The secondary motive – to prevent the boys becoming figureheads of any potential insurgency – is examined in Chapter 11.
8
Sir James Tyrell’s Confession
Fact or Fiction?
Sir James Tyrell (1456–1502)1 is a significant person of interest for The Missing Princes Project, not least for an unspecified journey undertaken by him to Flanders on behalf of Richard III in late 1484 ‘for diverse matters concernyng gretely our wele’,2 and shortly afterwards, in January 1485, for his receipt of the quite astonishing sum of £3,000 on the continent.3
More generally, Tyrell enjoyed a long-standing closeness to Richard, as both duke and king. However, he is also prominent because of the number of enquiries that have been received by the project questioning the need for a research initiative into the mystery of the princes when it is known that Tyrell confessed to their murder. Many cite as proof a Channel 4 TV documentary first broadcast on 21 March 2015, just before the reinterment of Richard III in Leicester, and repeated since.
After briefly introducing Sir James Tyrell, we will consider his alleged confession in light of the historical record and establish precisely what is known. We will also look at the conclusion reached by the television programme.
The following analysis also brings to light what seems to be new information regarding Sir James Tyrell: that he was appointed Gloucester’s Chamberlain in 1479 (at the same time that Robert Brackenbury was the duke’s Treasurer), and that his likeness may adorn the walls of St Nicholas’ Chapel in Gipping, Suffolk.
Sir James Tyrell
Very truth is it and well known that at such time as Sir James Tyrell was in the Tower for treason committed against the most famous prince, King Henry the Seventh, both Dighton and he were examined and confessed the murder in manner above written …4
Sir James Tyrell was the son of Sir William Tyrell of Gipping, Suffolk, and Margaret Darcy of Maldon, Essex. In 1462, his father was executed for his involvement in a conspiracy against Edward IV. Tyrell’s wardship was given to Cecily, Duchess of York, who shortly returned it to Tyrell’s mother, Margaret, and her feoffees (trustees of her estate) for a token £50.5
In May 1471,6 James Tyrell fought for the House of York at the Battle of Tewkesbury and was knighted on the field by King Edward. By 1473, he had joined Richard of Gloucester’s retinue and was entrusted to escort the duke’s mother-in-law, the widowed Dowager Countess of Warwick (1426–92), from sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey to Yorkshire. By 1474, he was one of the challengers at the tournament to celebrate the creation of King Edward’s youngest son as Duke of York, and he was also part of the army that invaded France the following year. By 1477, Tyrell was Gloucester’s Sheriff of Glamorgan and Morgannwg in Wales, and in April 1479 he was appointed the duke’s Chamberlain.7
By January 1480, his cousin, Elizabeth Tyrell (c. 1436–1507) had been appointed Lady Mistress of the Royal Nursery by Elizabeth Woodville.8 In 1482, Gloucester made Tyrell knight-banneret during the Scottish campaign and by mid-November, he was appointed Vice Constable of England (Richard held the office of Constable of England).9 As Vice Constable, Tyrell was responsible for the short custody of Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York, following the discovery of William Hastings’ conspiracy on 13 June 1483.
Tyrell had five children with his wife, Anne, who was the daughter of Sir John Arundel and Elizabeth Morley.10
Sir James Tyrell and Richard III
Following King Richard’s accession in June 1483, Tyrell was made a Knight of the Body, Master of the Horse and Master of the Henchmen. During the October uprising, he was largely responsible for the Duke of Buckingham’s capture in Wales and escorted him to Salisbury for execution. With the aid of his gentleman servant, Christopher Wellesbourne, Tyrell was also responsible for the discovery of Buckingham’s 5-year-old son and heir.11
Tyrell was given authority to seize and administer Buckingham’s forfeited Welsh estates and to reassert the king’s authority over crown lands in Wales.12 He was also rewarded with the stewardship of the Duchy of Cornwall for life and given the Cornish lands of the rebel Thomas Arundel.13
By early January 1485, Tyrell was made Lieutenant of Guînes Castle in the Marches of Calais, a key strategic stronghold. As a result, he was not present at the Battle of Bosworth.
Sir James Tyrell and Henry VII
Tyrell’s absence from Bosworth may account for the fact that he was not attainted for his support of King Richard. He seems to have made his peace with Henry VII, keeping his office at Guînes but losing his positions in Wales14 and Cornwall and the Arundel lands. By 16 June and 12 July 1486, Tyrell had secured two royal pardons for a possible association with the first Yorkist rebellion, headed by the Stafford brothers and Francis, Viscount Lovell,15 and which included Tyrell’s gentlemen servants, Giles and Christopher Wellesbourne. The first pardon was for himself and the second for himself and those in the Guînes garrison, including its former chaplain.16
By 1488 Tyrell was a Knight of the Body, and by 1495, a Royal Councillor and feoffee to the use of Henry VII’s will.
In November 1499, the executions of the Earl of Warwick and the pretender known as Perkin Warbeck took place (Tyrell was not named in the pretender’s confession thereby suggesting no apparent connection between them). In 1501, Tyrell attended the Lord Steward (Sir Robert Willoughby) at the reception of Catherine of Aragon in London.
Following the death of Henry VII’s heir, Prince Arthur, in April 1502, Tyrell was lured out of Guînes Castle by a safe custody and indicted for his support of the Plantagenet Yorkist heir, Edmund de la Pole. Imprisoned in the Tower of London, Tyrell was tried for treason at the Guildhall in London on 2 May 1502 and executed on Tower Hill four days later. He was 46. His son Thomas, who was arrested with him, had his sentence commuted to imprisonment.
Sir James Tyrell was posthumously attainted for high treason on 25 January 1504.17 The attainder was reversed three years later, on 19 April 1507.18 He was buried in the Austin Friars, in London.
Sir Thomas More: Tyrell’s Confession
The account of Tyrell’s confession that has been quoted was written by Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), see Chapter 5. Written as a dramatic narrative,19 it was first published (without acknowledgement) eight years after More’s death by the printer Richard Grafton, who copied it as a continuation to his publication of John Hardyng’s Chronicle (1543).20 The unfinished manuscript was found posthumously among More’s papers by his brother-in-law, John Rastell (d. 1536) and published in 1557 as the ‘authentic’ version by his nephew, William Rastell (d. 1565).21
Concerns have been raised over the fact that More failed to publish this account during his lifetime.22 For a prolific writer to keep a manuscript unfinished, untitled and unpublished is perhaps a first warning sign; that he never referred to it in his many letters is perhaps another.
A further significant alert is provided by its innumerable errors,23 William Hastings is named ‘Richard’ Hastings and Henry, Duke of Buckingham, ‘Edward’. Additionally, More’s opening line detailing Edward IV’s age at his death is incorrect and seems to follow the age of Henry VII at his demise. As a result of many decades of scholarship, More’s manuscript is today viewed as a literary narrative and early humanist treatise on royal tyranny.24
More’s sources are important. Although he states of Tyrell and Dighton’s confession, ‘Very truth is it and well known’, he offers no evidence to corroborate his claim. Prior to this, he makes a number of statements describing his sources as local rumour and gossip. He also claims to have heard a number of differing accounts of the princes’ deaths, ‘I shall rehearse you the dolorous end of those babes, not after every way that I have heard, but after that way I have heard by such men and by such means as me thinketh it were hard but it should be true’.25
More’s work is peppered with statements such as ‘as some say’, ‘as I have heard’, ‘they say’,26 ‘I have learned of them that much knew and little cause to lie’, and ‘I have heard by credible report of such as were secret with his chamberers that, after this abominable deed done, he [Richard] never had quiet of mind’.27 He also asserts ‘that some remain in doubt whether they were in his [Richard’s] days destroyed or no’.28
In terms of Dighton (the second named confession), More goes on to reveal that he ‘yet walketh on alive in good possibility to be hanged ere he die’. At this remove, this seems a rather astonishing and scarcely credible claim – a man who confessed to a double murder and regicide is nevertheless at liberty and permitted to walk free. Moreover, there is no evidence that a ‘Dighton’ was in the Tower during Tyrell’s confinement29 or that Tyrell and Dighton were ever examined.30
The Sources
Given these concerns, what can we establish regarding the veracity of More’s account of Tyrell and Dighton’s confessions? Is it supported by other sources of the period? It is important that we now consider these sources in some detail.
Robert Fabyan, The Great Chronicle of London (c. 1512)
The first connection between Tyrell and the presumed death of Edward IV’s sons occurs in The Great Chronicle of London. After reciting various rumours concerning the manner of the children’s demise, the text says:
But howsoever 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, modernised].31
Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (First Published in 1534)
Fabyan’s continuation of the Great Chronicle, along with other sources, would have provided material for Polydore Vergil’s history of England, Anglica Historia (1512, published in 1534, 1546 and 1555).32 Henry VII’s historian would certainly have noted the reference to Tyrell, as, indeed, would Thomas More, who had access to both works.
Vergil refers thus to King Richard’s royal progress visit to York in September 1483:
But when Richard heard that the constable [of the Tower] was delaying the execution of his command, he immediately gave to another, namely Sir James Tyrrell, the task of swiftly despatching his nephews. Obliged to execute these orders, Tyrrell left York for London and at once had the boys put to death. Thus perished Prince Edward alongside his brother Richard. But what manner of death the poor innocents met is not known for certain.33
Later, while introducing the uprising launched on behalf of the Yorkist pretender known as ‘Lambert Simnel’ (April 1486), Vergil says, ‘Henry VII had (as soon as he had gained power) flung Edward, the only son of the duke of Clarence, into the Tower of London, and … it was popularly rumoured that Edward [V] had been murdered in that place’.34
Vergil then states that Lambert Simnel was an impostor for claiming to be the Duke of Clarence’s son, Edward of Warwick, adding that Simnel’s followers in Ireland would ‘restore the boy to the throne [of England; emphasis added]’.35
Vergil goes on to discuss at some length the next Yorkist uprising, which was in the name of another pretender, Peter (or Perkin) Warbeck, who was a ‘deception’ or believed to be the ‘resuscitated duke of York’,36 the younger Prince in the Tower. Vergil relates that the ‘youth’ had:
falsely assumed the person and name of Richard duke of York, who had many years before been murdered with his brother Edward in the Tower of London on the orders of his uncle Richard, as was known beyond doubt. And to assert or to believe otherwise would be the height of folly.37
In discussing the pretender’s time with James IV in Scotland in 1495–97, Vergil adds, ‘if he [Peter] were restored to the kingdom with the king’s help [emphasis added]’.38
With ‘Peter’ executed for treason by King Henry in November 1499, Vergil moved on to discuss a new Yorkist pretender to Henry’s throne, Edmund de la Pole, the son of Edward IV and Richard III’s sister, Elizabeth Plantagenet, Duchess of Suffolk. Here, in 1502, Tyrell is again named as the murderer of King Edward’s sons: ‘At length even James Tyrell came to the scaffold. He was that same James to whom King Richard deputed the business of arranging the deaths of the two wretched sons of King Edward; which business he thoroughly performed.’
Vergil adds:
On that occasion James could – without danger to his own life – have spared the boys, rescued them from death and carried them to safety … But he would not do this in order that he might afterwards try, against all human and divine injunctions, to help Earl Edmund, son of Edward’s sister; for this at length he paid by his own death the appropriate penalty for his previous crimes.39
There is no record in Vergil of a confession by Tyrell, nor of an individual named Dighton.
Despite recording these alleged murders, as we have seen, Vergil commented that doubts persisted as to the demise of Edward IV’s sons, ‘A report prevailed among the common people that the sons of Edward the king had migrated to some part of the earth in secret, and there were still surviving’.40
More’s account of Tyrell’s (and Dighton’s) confession now informed the many histories published during the reigns of the Tudor monarchs. Through Holinshed (2nd edition, 1587), it became the principal source material for Shakespeare’s play in 1593.
Consequently, following the demise of the Tudor dynasty, it is important to now consider what the early Jacobean historians had to say about Sir James Tyrell and the confession.
Sir George Buc, The History of King Richard the Third (1619)
Sir George Buc believed More’s account to stem from an original work by Cardinal John Morton (c. 1420–1500),41 Henry VII’s advisor and chief administrator.42 In considering the contradictory nature of More’s work, Buc observed:
For they [Morton and More] say in one place, as I have cited it before, that it was held in doubt whether they were murdered. But they say afterward that Tyrell and Dighton, being examined, confessed plainly and certainly the murder of the two princely brothers, the sons of King Edward IV, and all the manner of it. These be contraries. And by these contraries their speech falleth. […]
And then in regard that the confession of those was such as that it might not be disclosed nor the crime called in question and to justice but left unpunished (as the said authors confess), then it was but a counterfeit confession.43
After considering how all those named by More (and Morton) in connection with the murder died of natural causes (see Chapter 17), Buc concludes:
But Tyrell may be excepted in one respect, because he died not his natural death but a violent death. But yet that was not inflicted upon him for the murder of the two princes, but for other treason long afterward committed by him, and against King Henry himself. Moreover, John Green,44 who was said to be a party in the practice of this foul treason against the young princes, was never called in question.45
Sir Francis Bacon, History of the Reign of King Henry VII (1622)
Shortly after Buc’s commentary was completed, Sir Francis Bacon, former Lord Chancellor of England, published The Historie of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh. After twice mentioning the rumoured survival of one or more of the sons of King Edward IV,46 Bacon records the deaths of two of the four named individuals involved in the murder. These are given as Miles Forest47 and the Tower of London’s priest – who is said to have buried the boys.48 Bacon adds:
… and there remained alive only Sir James Tyrell and John Dighton. These two the king caused to be committed to the Tower, and examined touching the manner of death of the two innocent princes. They both agreed in a tale, as the king gave out to the effect … [the narrative then follows More’s account of the murder] … This much was then delivered abroad, to be the effect of those investigations, but the king, nevertheless, made no use of them in any of his declarations; whereby, as it seems, those examinations left the business somewhat perplexed. And as for Sir James Tyrell, he was soon after beheaded in the Tower-yard for other matters of treason. But John Dighton, who, it seemed, spoke best for the king, was forthwith set at liberty, and was the principal means of divulging this tradition.49
Finally, it is perhaps significant, in terms of our enquiries, to consider one further point. Early in Henry VII’s reign, when he would have welcomed any proof that the pre-contract was a slanderous lie, he chose to destroy and suppress it rather than openly challenge and disprove it. Henry’s actions demonstrate that he lacked the evidence to refute Edward IV’s Talbot marriage. His heavy-handed approach shows that it was too dangerous to investigate the matter further and his own claim to the throne rested on a policy of ruthless censorship.
From the documentary evidence presented, it is clear that Richard III was the legal King of England. He was petitioned and elected by the Lords, Church and Commons, otherwise known as the ‘Three Estates of the Realm’, which formed a Parliament when convened in session by a monarch.
Consequently, in terms of our enquiries, Richard, as duke and king, had no clear motive to murder his nephews, Edward V (12) and Richard, Duke of York (9). The secondary motive – to prevent the boys becoming figureheads of any potential insurgency – is examined in Chapter 11.
8
Sir James Tyrell’s Confession
Fact or Fiction?
Sir James Tyrell (1456–1502)1 is a significant person of interest for The Missing Princes Project, not least for an unspecified journey undertaken by him to Flanders on behalf of Richard III in late 1484 ‘for diverse matters concernyng gretely our wele’,2 and shortly afterwards, in January 1485, for his receipt of the quite astonishing sum of £3,000 on the continent.3
More generally, Tyrell enjoyed a long-standing closeness to Richard, as both duke and king. However, he is also prominent because of the number of enquiries that have been received by the project questioning the need for a research initiative into the mystery of the princes when it is known that Tyrell confessed to their murder. Many cite as proof a Channel 4 TV documentary first broadcast on 21 March 2015, just before the reinterment of Richard III in Leicester, and repeated since.
After briefly introducing Sir James Tyrell, we will consider his alleged confession in light of the historical record and establish precisely what is known. We will also look at the conclusion reached by the television programme.
The following analysis also brings to light what seems to be new information regarding Sir James Tyrell: that he was appointed Gloucester’s Chamberlain in 1479 (at the same time that Robert Brackenbury was the duke’s Treasurer), and that his likeness may adorn the walls of St Nicholas’ Chapel in Gipping, Suffolk.
Sir James Tyrell
Very truth is it and well known that at such time as Sir James Tyrell was in the Tower for treason committed against the most famous prince, King Henry the Seventh, both Dighton and he were examined and confessed the murder in manner above written …4
Sir James Tyrell was the son of Sir William Tyrell of Gipping, Suffolk, and Margaret Darcy of Maldon, Essex. In 1462, his father was executed for his involvement in a conspiracy against Edward IV. Tyrell’s wardship was given to Cecily, Duchess of York, who shortly returned it to Tyrell’s mother, Margaret, and her feoffees (trustees of her estate) for a token £50.5
In May 1471,6 James Tyrell fought for the House of York at the Battle of Tewkesbury and was knighted on the field by King Edward. By 1473, he had joined Richard of Gloucester’s retinue and was entrusted to escort the duke’s mother-in-law, the widowed Dowager Countess of Warwick (1426–92), from sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey to Yorkshire. By 1474, he was one of the challengers at the tournament to celebrate the creation of King Edward’s youngest son as Duke of York, and he was also part of the army that invaded France the following year. By 1477, Tyrell was Gloucester’s Sheriff of Glamorgan and Morgannwg in Wales, and in April 1479 he was appointed the duke’s Chamberlain.7
By January 1480, his cousin, Elizabeth Tyrell (c. 1436–1507) had been appointed Lady Mistress of the Royal Nursery by Elizabeth Woodville.8 In 1482, Gloucester made Tyrell knight-banneret during the Scottish campaign and by mid-November, he was appointed Vice Constable of England (Richard held the office of Constable of England).9 As Vice Constable, Tyrell was responsible for the short custody of Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York, following the discovery of William Hastings’ conspiracy on 13 June 1483.
Tyrell had five children with his wife, Anne, who was the daughter of Sir John Arundel and Elizabeth Morley.10
Sir James Tyrell and Richard III
Following King Richard’s accession in June 1483, Tyrell was made a Knight of the Body, Master of the Horse and Master of the Henchmen. During the October uprising, he was largely responsible for the Duke of Buckingham’s capture in Wales and escorted him to Salisbury for execution. With the aid of his gentleman servant, Christopher Wellesbourne, Tyrell was also responsible for the discovery of Buckingham’s 5-year-old son and heir.11
Tyrell was given authority to seize and administer Buckingham’s forfeited Welsh estates and to reassert the king’s authority over crown lands in Wales.12 He was also rewarded with the stewardship of the Duchy of Cornwall for life and given the Cornish lands of the rebel Thomas Arundel.13
By early January 1485, Tyrell was made Lieutenant of Guînes Castle in the Marches of Calais, a key strategic stronghold. As a result, he was not present at the Battle of Bosworth.
Sir James Tyrell and Henry VII
Tyrell’s absence from Bosworth may account for the fact that he was not attainted for his support of King Richard. He seems to have made his peace with Henry VII, keeping his office at Guînes but losing his positions in Wales14 and Cornwall and the Arundel lands. By 16 June and 12 July 1486, Tyrell had secured two royal pardons for a possible association with the first Yorkist rebellion, headed by the Stafford brothers and Francis, Viscount Lovell,15 and which included Tyrell’s gentlemen servants, Giles and Christopher Wellesbourne. The first pardon was for himself and the second for himself and those in the Guînes garrison, including its former chaplain.16
By 1488 Tyrell was a Knight of the Body, and by 1495, a Royal Councillor and feoffee to the use of Henry VII’s will.
In November 1499, the executions of the Earl of Warwick and the pretender known as Perkin Warbeck took place (Tyrell was not named in the pretender’s confession thereby suggesting no apparent connection between them). In 1501, Tyrell attended the Lord Steward (Sir Robert Willoughby) at the reception of Catherine of Aragon in London.
Following the death of Henry VII’s heir, Prince Arthur, in April 1502, Tyrell was lured out of Guînes Castle by a safe custody and indicted for his support of the Plantagenet Yorkist heir, Edmund de la Pole. Imprisoned in the Tower of London, Tyrell was tried for treason at the Guildhall in London on 2 May 1502 and executed on Tower Hill four days later. He was 46. His son Thomas, who was arrested with him, had his sentence commuted to imprisonment.
Sir James Tyrell was posthumously attainted for high treason on 25 January 1504.17 The attainder was reversed three years later, on 19 April 1507.18 He was buried in the Austin Friars, in London.
Sir Thomas More: Tyrell’s Confession
The account of Tyrell’s confession that has been quoted was written by Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), see Chapter 5. Written as a dramatic narrative,19 it was first published (without acknowledgement) eight years after More’s death by the printer Richard Grafton, who copied it as a continuation to his publication of John Hardyng’s Chronicle (1543).20 The unfinished manuscript was found posthumously among More’s papers by his brother-in-law, John Rastell (d. 1536) and published in 1557 as the ‘authentic’ version by his nephew, William Rastell (d. 1565).21
Concerns have been raised over the fact that More failed to publish this account during his lifetime.22 For a prolific writer to keep a manuscript unfinished, untitled and unpublished is perhaps a first warning sign; that he never referred to it in his many letters is perhaps another.
A further significant alert is provided by its innumerable errors,23 William Hastings is named ‘Richard’ Hastings and Henry, Duke of Buckingham, ‘Edward’. Additionally, More’s opening line detailing Edward IV’s age at his death is incorrect and seems to follow the age of Henry VII at his demise. As a result of many decades of scholarship, More’s manuscript is today viewed as a literary narrative and early humanist treatise on royal tyranny.24
More’s sources are important. Although he states of Tyrell and Dighton’s confession, ‘Very truth is it and well known’, he offers no evidence to corroborate his claim. Prior to this, he makes a number of statements describing his sources as local rumour and gossip. He also claims to have heard a number of differing accounts of the princes’ deaths, ‘I shall rehearse you the dolorous end of those babes, not after every way that I have heard, but after that way I have heard by such men and by such means as me thinketh it were hard but it should be true’.25
More’s work is peppered with statements such as ‘as some say’, ‘as I have heard’, ‘they say’,26 ‘I have learned of them that much knew and little cause to lie’, and ‘I have heard by credible report of such as were secret with his chamberers that, after this abominable deed done, he [Richard] never had quiet of mind’.27 He also asserts ‘that some remain in doubt whether they were in his [Richard’s] days destroyed or no’.28
In terms of Dighton (the second named confession), More goes on to reveal that he ‘yet walketh on alive in good possibility to be hanged ere he die’. At this remove, this seems a rather astonishing and scarcely credible claim – a man who confessed to a double murder and regicide is nevertheless at liberty and permitted to walk free. Moreover, there is no evidence that a ‘Dighton’ was in the Tower during Tyrell’s confinement29 or that Tyrell and Dighton were ever examined.30
The Sources
Given these concerns, what can we establish regarding the veracity of More’s account of Tyrell and Dighton’s confessions? Is it supported by other sources of the period? It is important that we now consider these sources in some detail.
Robert Fabyan, The Great Chronicle of London (c. 1512)
The first connection between Tyrell and the presumed death of Edward IV’s sons occurs in The Great Chronicle of London. After reciting various rumours concerning the manner of the children’s demise, the text says:
But howsoever 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, modernised].31
Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (First Published in 1534)
Fabyan’s continuation of the Great Chronicle, along with other sources, would have provided material for Polydore Vergil’s history of England, Anglica Historia (1512, published in 1534, 1546 and 1555).32 Henry VII’s historian would certainly have noted the reference to Tyrell, as, indeed, would Thomas More, who had access to both works.
Vergil refers thus to King Richard’s royal progress visit to York in September 1483:
But when Richard heard that the constable [of the Tower] was delaying the execution of his command, he immediately gave to another, namely Sir James Tyrrell, the task of swiftly despatching his nephews. Obliged to execute these orders, Tyrrell left York for London and at once had the boys put to death. Thus perished Prince Edward alongside his brother Richard. But what manner of death the poor innocents met is not known for certain.33
Later, while introducing the uprising launched on behalf of the Yorkist pretender known as ‘Lambert Simnel’ (April 1486), Vergil says, ‘Henry VII had (as soon as he had gained power) flung Edward, the only son of the duke of Clarence, into the Tower of London, and … it was popularly rumoured that Edward [V] had been murdered in that place’.34
Vergil then states that Lambert Simnel was an impostor for claiming to be the Duke of Clarence’s son, Edward of Warwick, adding that Simnel’s followers in Ireland would ‘restore the boy to the throne [of England; emphasis added]’.35
Vergil goes on to discuss at some length the next Yorkist uprising, which was in the name of another pretender, Peter (or Perkin) Warbeck, who was a ‘deception’ or believed to be the ‘resuscitated duke of York’,36 the younger Prince in the Tower. Vergil relates that the ‘youth’ had:
falsely assumed the person and name of Richard duke of York, who had many years before been murdered with his brother Edward in the Tower of London on the orders of his uncle Richard, as was known beyond doubt. And to assert or to believe otherwise would be the height of folly.37
In discussing the pretender’s time with James IV in Scotland in 1495–97, Vergil adds, ‘if he [Peter] were restored to the kingdom with the king’s help [emphasis added]’.38
With ‘Peter’ executed for treason by King Henry in November 1499, Vergil moved on to discuss a new Yorkist pretender to Henry’s throne, Edmund de la Pole, the son of Edward IV and Richard III’s sister, Elizabeth Plantagenet, Duchess of Suffolk. Here, in 1502, Tyrell is again named as the murderer of King Edward’s sons: ‘At length even James Tyrell came to the scaffold. He was that same James to whom King Richard deputed the business of arranging the deaths of the two wretched sons of King Edward; which business he thoroughly performed.’
Vergil adds:
On that occasion James could – without danger to his own life – have spared the boys, rescued them from death and carried them to safety … But he would not do this in order that he might afterwards try, against all human and divine injunctions, to help Earl Edmund, son of Edward’s sister; for this at length he paid by his own death the appropriate penalty for his previous crimes.39
There is no record in Vergil of a confession by Tyrell, nor of an individual named Dighton.
Despite recording these alleged murders, as we have seen, Vergil commented that doubts persisted as to the demise of Edward IV’s sons, ‘A report prevailed among the common people that the sons of Edward the king had migrated to some part of the earth in secret, and there were still surviving’.40
More’s account of Tyrell’s (and Dighton’s) confession now informed the many histories published during the reigns of the Tudor monarchs. Through Holinshed (2nd edition, 1587), it became the principal source material for Shakespeare’s play in 1593.
Consequently, following the demise of the Tudor dynasty, it is important to now consider what the early Jacobean historians had to say about Sir James Tyrell and the confession.
Sir George Buc, The History of King Richard the Third (1619)
Sir George Buc believed More’s account to stem from an original work by Cardinal John Morton (c. 1420–1500),41 Henry VII’s advisor and chief administrator.42 In considering the contradictory nature of More’s work, Buc observed:
For they [Morton and More] say in one place, as I have cited it before, that it was held in doubt whether they were murdered. But they say afterward that Tyrell and Dighton, being examined, confessed plainly and certainly the murder of the two princely brothers, the sons of King Edward IV, and all the manner of it. These be contraries. And by these contraries their speech falleth. […]
And then in regard that the confession of those was such as that it might not be disclosed nor the crime called in question and to justice but left unpunished (as the said authors confess), then it was but a counterfeit confession.43
After considering how all those named by More (and Morton) in connection with the murder died of natural causes (see Chapter 17), Buc concludes:
But Tyrell may be excepted in one respect, because he died not his natural death but a violent death. But yet that was not inflicted upon him for the murder of the two princes, but for other treason long afterward committed by him, and against King Henry himself. Moreover, John Green,44 who was said to be a party in the practice of this foul treason against the young princes, was never called in question.45
Sir Francis Bacon, History of the Reign of King Henry VII (1622)
Shortly after Buc’s commentary was completed, Sir Francis Bacon, former Lord Chancellor of England, published The Historie of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh. After twice mentioning the rumoured survival of one or more of the sons of King Edward IV,46 Bacon records the deaths of two of the four named individuals involved in the murder. These are given as Miles Forest47 and the Tower of London’s priest – who is said to have buried the boys.48 Bacon adds:
… and there remained alive only Sir James Tyrell and John Dighton. These two the king caused to be committed to the Tower, and examined touching the manner of death of the two innocent princes. They both agreed in a tale, as the king gave out to the effect … [the narrative then follows More’s account of the murder] … This much was then delivered abroad, to be the effect of those investigations, but the king, nevertheless, made no use of them in any of his declarations; whereby, as it seems, those examinations left the business somewhat perplexed. And as for Sir James Tyrell, he was soon after beheaded in the Tower-yard for other matters of treason. But John Dighton, who, it seemed, spoke best for the king, was forthwith set at liberty, and was the principal means of divulging this tradition.49
