The Princes in the Tower, page 16
Summary
1. Thomas More goes so far as to concede that ‘some remain in doubt’ that the princes were murdered and that it ‘should be true’, but he then goes on to say of the Tyrell confession, ‘Very truth is it’. More identifies his anonymous sources as ‘such men’ and those who ‘much knew and had little cause to lie’. The only real clue to his informants comes from ‘such as were secret with his chamberers’, meaning those who were close to those who served King Richard in his chamber. However, More also tells us that he had heard many versions of the story, ‘after every way that I have heard’.
2. The Great Chronicle does not record Tyrell’s confession (nor mention a Dighton). It states that Tyrell was ‘reported to be the doer’ but fails to record the source of the rumour condemning Tyrell as the murderer. It then adds to the confusion, saying that ‘others’ put ‘that weight’ on someone else committing the crime, ‘an old servant of King Richard’s named ____’ (presumably planning to name this unidentified individual). It is unclear whether ‘old’ referred to the advancing age of this servant as it was now some twenty-nine years later, or if it meant an aged servant, or a servant of many years standing.
3. Vergil’s account, like the Great Chronicle, also fails to include any confession or a figure named Dighton. Vergil attributes the murder to Tyrell but then claims that Tyrell killed the sons of Edward IV because he wanted the son of King Edward’s sister to reign. He tells us it was ‘popularly rumoured’ that Edward V was killed and then, paradoxically, uses the words ‘restore’ and ‘restored’ when discussing both Lambert Simnel’s claim to the throne as the ‘King Edward’ crowned in Ireland, and Peter Warbeck’s claim as the Duke of York, the youngest son of Edward IV. Vergil also states the murders of both boys were ‘known without doubt’ and to ‘assert or to believe otherwise would be the height of folly’. He offers nothing in aid of identifying the sources of his information, or the rumours.
Vergil’s timeline for the murders also requires scrutiny. His account says that Tyrell returned to London from York (29 August–20 September), when the alleged crime was committed. Today, this is said to be supported because Tyrell visited London at this time to collect items of clothing. In 1983, historians Anne Sutton and Peter Hammond published the original documents of the Great Wardrobe Accounts. Two deliveries of clothing to York relate to Tyrell. One is designated to Tyrell as Master of the Horse to his office and was received by its Clerk of the Stable, a John Frisley.50 The second order was delivered to the seven henchmen of the king and Tyrell, ‘their master’, for their ‘apparel and array’ for the investiture of the Prince of Wales (8 September) and ‘delivered unto them for theire were [wear] [emphasis added]’.51 As Sutton and Hammond confirm, the original Wardrobe Accounts do not say that Tyrell collected the goods. They added, ‘It is inconceivable that the important Master of the Horse and Henchmen would have ridden several hundred miles to pick up clothes which could have been delivered by a menial.’52
4. The Jacobean writer Sir George Buc questions the veracity of More’s confession story on account of its many contradictions, particularly the lack of written evidence and the failure of King Henry to publish the alleged confession. Buc, an antiquarian, diligently identifies his sources in his History, among them the Howard family, including Lord William Howard and Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey (great-great-grandson of John Howard and great-grandson of Thomas Howard). Both John and Thomas served Richard III and fought for him at Bosworth.
Buc acquired information from heralds, who were his acquaintances, many contemporary records of the time and members of families involved in the events of Richard’s reign. Manuscript sources included a letter written by Elizabeth of York in his patron’s collection (Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey) and a certain ‘old manuscript book’, which he had seen but was later unable to locate.53
Buc, while roundly dismissing More’s account of a group of murderers led by Tyrell, protests that the truth ought to have been discovered ‘by due examination’ of those who remained alive.
5. Francis Bacon concurs with Buc in questioning the confessions but believes that Tyrell and Dighton were examined in the Tower, where they ‘both agreed in a tale’. Bacon offers a most intriguing royal source, revealing that the confession story was ‘as the king gave out’, and that Dighton, set at liberty, was the ‘principal means of divulging this tradition’.54
The Princes in the Tower by Oxford Films
Let us now turn to the TV documentary The Princes in the Tower (Channel 4, 2015), considered by some to be twenty-first-century proof of Tyrell’s alleged confession:
More is 99 per cent right. There is some sort of confession. What we have here is as near as we can get to the truth.
With this verdict, the documentary concluded that ‘we may finally have solved the mystery of the Princes in the Tower’.55
The documentary followed the suggestion that the truth of More’s confession story was confirmed by the fact that Henry VII and his queen were staying in the Tower of London, where Tyrell was on trial, and were therefore present in person to witness Tyrell’s admission of guilt. If this were true, it represented a considerable step forward.
However, that argument failed to report three significant points. First, Tyrell’s trial had nothing to do with the sons of Edward IV; he was, in fact, arraigned for committing high treason in support of the Yorkist heir, Edmund de la Pole.56 Second, the trial had not taken place at the Tower of London but was heard at the Guildhall in central London, so there is no evidence for the claim that Henry and his queen were present to witness proceedings. And third, the Tower was a palace and royal residence.57 Sadly, none of these pertinent facts were presented or scrutinised.
Conclusion
The veracity of More’s account of the confession of Sir James Tyrell (and Dighton) to the murder of the sons of Edward IV is dependent upon the following factors.
First, is there any confirmatory evidence? As England’s former Chancellor Sir Francis Bacon informs us, this does not exist. No declarations or proclamations were made by King Henry, nothing reported in Parliament or recorded and published by the government of the day. What accounts we do have are contradictory and incoherent. Polydore Vergil claimed that Tyrell murdered the sons of King Edward IV so that a younger son of King Edward’s sister could rule at some future date. Such remarkable foresight and political cunning is not borne out by the historical evidence nor supported by Tyrell’s long and faithful service to three reigning monarchs.58
In confirmation that More’s ‘evidence’ was not generally accepted, we have Vergil’s recorded admission that at the time the pretender Lambert Simnel appeared – barely eight months after Bosworth Field – it was commonly believed that the sons of Edward IV were not dead but safely hidden.59 The words printed in Vergil’s publications of 1546 and 1555 are worth repeating here:
… in vulgus fama valeret filios Edouardi regis aliquo terrarum secreto migrasse, atque ita superstites esse.
[… 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.]60
It is seldom remarked that Vergil’s text was contemporary with the first plagiarised appearances in print of More’s experimental drama. Another point often overlooked is Vergil’s use of the words ‘restore’ and ‘restored’ when reporting the identities of the two pretenders to the English throne. Did these terms – which actually suggest the authenticity of the pretenders – slip through the net?
We also have the considerable evidence provided by Tyrell’s wider family’s support for the pretender Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be the youngest son of Edward IV. In 1498, Sir John Speke was fined the enormous sum of £200 by Henry VII for ‘aiding and comforting’ the pretender.61 W.E. Hampton records:
Speke’s adherence to Warbeck suggests that even that branch of the Arundel family which was hostile to Richard III had no knowledge of the certain deaths of the sons of Edward IV nor suspicion of Sir James’s responsibility in the matter …62
Significantly, we also have evidence of Tyrell’s close family’s support of Warbeck, and their confirmation that he was the son of Edward IV. Tyrell’s first cousin,63 Sir Thomas Tyrell of Essex and Hertfordshire (c. 1453–1510), was one of several conspirators in the Warbeck rebellion, which aimed to assassinate Henry VII.
One of Henry’s spies recorded a remarkable conversation in which Sir Thomas Tyrell stated unequivocally that the boy was King Edward’s son.64 Sir Thomas had been an Esquire of the Body to Edward IV and Richard III65 and was also the nephew of Elizabeth Tyrell, Mistress of the Royal Nursery. It seems, therefore, that Sir Thomas, like many others in the Warbeck conspiracy, had connections with the Yorkist royal family, its household and nursery.66
Despite written evidence of his treason, together with two witnesses, it is quite remarkable that Sir Thomas was never brought to trial, whereas Sir William Stanley, King Henry’s Chamberlain, had been summarily executed for uttering some words in support of the boy. Interestingly, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) records no mention of Sir Thomas Tyrell’s part in the conspiracy nor the family’s identification of Warbeck as King Edward’s son.67 We must also add to this the Tyrell family tradition that both princes stayed at Gipping with their mother (Elizabeth Woodville) ‘by permission of the uncle [Richard III]’.68
Additionally, as Annette Carson established, no records survive of contemporary Requiem Masses for the souls of the boys.69 This, in terms of the period’s religiosity, is highly significant.
Second, we must consider chronology. Henry VII had been king and master of the Tower of London from the summer of 1485, but it had apparently taken seventeen years to produce a story of any kind which accounted, ‘as the king gave out’, for the disappearance of the princes. Importantly, the story appeared at a time of genuine crisis for the early Tudor dynasty. Henry VII’s son and heir had died unexpectedly (as had his third son, Prince Edmund), while the king himself was ill and deeply unpopular. The marriage of Catherine of Aragon to Henry’s remaining son (Prince Henry) therefore assumed some importance in securing the dynasty’s future.
Did Henry VII therefore feel compelled to reassure the Spanish monarchs of his continued hold on the throne by finally bringing the mystery of the princes to a definite conclusion, thereby securing the ground for this strategic marriage?
Third, we must take into account what we know about Sir James Tyrell. He served three kings faithfully and was placed in positions of trust. King Richard described him as ‘oure trusty and welbeloved knighte for oure body and Counsaillor’.70 His biographer, the Reverend Sewell, said of him, ‘We have abundant evidence of the greatness, reputation and personal bravery of
Signature of Sir James Tyrell (1456–1502), 8 January 1501, from deed of agreement, originally amongst muniments at Redgrave Hall, Suffolk. (Rev. W.H. Sewell, ‘Memoirs of Sir James Tyrell’, Proceedings of the Suffolk Natural History and Archaeological Society, Vol. 5, Part 2, 1878, p. 167. Redrawn: Philippa Langley)
Sir James Tyrell. He was one of the foremost, and certainly one of the ablest men of his day.’71
So, was it one of Tyrell’s royal duties that made him the ideal candidate for an alleged confession? As Master of the Henchmen, Tyrell was in charge of the young boys and teenagers at King Richard’s court – they were the squires and pages required for ceremonial duties and knightly training. Did this role provide a connection that afforded the story a degree of credence? Or was it because Tyrell’s cousin, Elizabeth, was Mistress of the Royal Nursery? Both positions would have placed Tyrell within the orbit of the children of Edward IV.
Or was it because he was responsible for the discovery and delivery of Buckingham’s young heir during Richard’s reign? However, no source during Tyrell’s lifetime raised any concern regarding his proximity to children or their safety in his care. Today, the ODNB fails to record any mention of Tyrell’s own children, four of whom married.72
Finally, we must also consider what we know about More’s unfinished manuscript; specifically, that it was written as a dramatic narrative and remained unfinished, untitled and unpublished. That it was not taken seriously as a ‘history’ can perhaps be further deduced from the written work of More’s brother-in-law, John Rastell in 1529. As C.S.L. Davies and Matthew Lewis establish,73 Rastell published his history of England in The Pastime of People,74 yet failed to record Tyrell, his confession or involvement in any murder. This despite the fact that Rastell, like his brother-in-law, was a prolific writer and publisher. Would More not have known about Rastell’s forthcoming great publication, nor mentioned the stories which formed part of his own writing? This would have been a considerable scoop for his publisher brother-in-law. At the time, More had also been made Lord Chancellor with access to all official records.
As a result, it seems that Sir James Tyrell has been cemented in the collective conscience as the undoubted murderer of the Princes in the Tower on the strength of two dramatic narratives that became immensely popular and remained so for centuries: those of More and Shakespeare. The publication of More’s account in the middle of the sixteenth century provided the key source for Shakespeare in 1593.
Until reliable evidence is forthcoming, or new materials uncovered, we must conclude that there are no grounds to support the validity (or veracity) of Sir James Tyrell’s alleged confession to the murder of King Edward IV’s sons.
However, we can perhaps conclude from this analysis that some connection was made between Tyrell and the sons of Edward IV, at or before the time of Tyrell’s death. Is this connection explained by the two pardons granted to Tyrell by King Henry in the summer of 1486, which in turn added an indirect degree of credence to what the king later ‘gave out’ in respect of Tyrell’s guilt?
9
Windsor Coffins and a Westminster Urn
In respect of foreign and Tudor allegations that the princes were killed, it is important to consider physical evidence. This relates primarily to any discovery of human remains, thereby establishing that a missing person has died, whether by natural causes, accident or homicide. Homicide may be defined as death resulting from the action (or inaction) of another person (or persons).
Place and time of discovery may also be important. Are the remains found at a location and a time consistent with the enquiry?
As we have seen previously, foreign and Tudor accounts either fail to provide details of searchable burial locations (giving, for example, the river as a possible place) or state that the location is not known (1530, 1543). Two accounts suggest burial locations for Edward V (12) and Richard, Duke of York, (9) at medieval St Paul’s Church (1500) and the Tower of London (1508, 1532).
Accounts in 1529 and 1619 state that a full search at the Tower and other places was made but nothing was found. With accounts of the alleged disposal of the bodies confused and disparate, today two discoveries are said to be evidence of their death in childhood, one by homicide (suffocation). The locations are St George’s Chapel, Windsor, and the Tower of London. It is important to examine both accounts for potential evidence.
The Windsor Coffins
In 1789–90 at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, restoration work on Edward IV’s burial vault revealed a nearby additional vault. As two of Edward IV’s other children were known to have been buried at the chapel, a ledger stone was therefore placed in the floor marking their burial.1 The children were Mary (14) and George (2). George died in March 1479, Mary in May 1482.
In 1811, during works in the Tomb House of the Wolsey Chapel (the Albert Memorial Chapel today), two coffins were discovered. These were found to contain King Edward’s children, with George’s coffin exhibiting a name plate.2 On Friday, 30 July 1813, the coffins were ‘deposited in a vault (in the presence of the Dean) constructed for the purpose immediately under the stone which bears their names, and adjoining the tomb of King Edward the 4th, in the North Aisle of St George’s Chapel’.3
In 2012, a blog on the chapel’s website suggested that two coffins found in 1790 in the vault close to that of Edward IV might be those of the Princes in the Tower.4 This suggestion took hold, prompting independent researchers Dr A.J. Hibbard (2015) and Eileen Bates (2016) to investigate.
In November 2016, the chapel archivist revealed that the original information on their website was inaccurate and ‘if there were any coffins in the vault it is not known how many there were or when they dated from’.5 The archivist explained that the 1790 report mentioned that a small vault was noticed at the time when Edward’s vault was opened but the former was not explored,6 and it was thought it could contain the coffins of King Edward’s children (George and Mary). This position was confirmed for the project in 2021 by Kate McQuillian, archivist at the chapel. Additionally, when the coffins of George and Mary had been interred in the vault adjoining King Edward’s in 1813 nothing of note was remarked upon. At this point, we can only conclude that no other coffins of children were observed there.
For St George’s Chapel to be considered a potential burial place for the sons of Edward IV during King Richard’s reign, it is also important to consider the most recent research in this regard.7 This examined the allocation of the Order of the Garter stalls in the chapel. Examination revealed that the stalls for Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were not reassigned during King Richard’s reign. Reassignment was (and still is) a necessary requirement for the royal order following death, degradation (attainder) or voluntary surrender. Indeed, on Henry Tudor’s arrival into London and his first visit to the royal chapel, he would have been greeted by both Yorkist stalls. The Garter stalls of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, would be reassigned during his reign (8 May 1491 and before 16 November 1489 respectively).8 Additionally, the Order of the Garter records from King Richard’s reign form a significant part of those innumerable documents either lost or destroyed following his death at Bosworth.
