The Princes in the Tower, page 39
Similar confirmatory letters denouncing excommunication having been lately obtained from your Holiness, in the same manner – the truth being suppressed – the said most illustrious Margaret and her nephew appealed, and committed the prosecution of the appeal to our ambassador, Philiberto Naturelli, requesting our recommendation and assistance with your Holiness,
We, perceiving the aforesaid confirmations and excommunications to be surreptitious and frivolous, as they could not exclude others from their right without hearing them; and as the said Richard Duke of York is the born son of Edward, the legitimate and true deceased King, and it is evident he has excellent right [optimum jus] to that kingdom; which things had they been known both to the pious memory of Innocent VIII., as also to your Holiness, similar letters would doubtless not have been conceded; we have thought fit to write to your Holiness, that this said matter, which is of such great moment, may be more carefully examined, and that what was ill conceded be revoked, or that you will clemently hear such other things as our said ambassador, Philibert, will more fully declare by word of mouth, providing and administering justice, so that said most illustrious Lady Margaret, and others whom it concerns, may, both from sense of justice and through our recommendation, obtain from your Holiness their right, and that for conscience sake [ex serupulo conscientiæ] we may see them freed from both sentences of excommunication. And your Holiness, whom may God preserve, will perform an act just and holy, and most agreeable to us.
From our city of Worms, 22nd September 1405 [sic 1495]. Maximilian, by divine clemency, King of the Romans, ever august King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, etc., Archduke of Austria, etc.
[On the external corner] Letter of Maximilian, presented by his ambassador, Philibert, the 18th of October 1405 [sic 1495]
Original from ‘Appendix: Miscellaneous 1495’, in Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 4, 1527–33, edited by Rawdon Brown (London, 1871), pp. 482–83. British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol4/pp.482-483
Appendix 9
Richard IV’s Proclamation, September 1496
(Modernised)
In the autumn of 2020, The Missing Princes Project began an investigation into a quite remarkable document – Richard of England’s proclamation from Scotland in September 1496. Here, he introduced himself as the youngest son of Edward IV and rightful King of England, King Richard IV. Project member Dr Judith Ford agreed to investigate this important contemporary source.
Judith’s investigation now reveals several new discoveries – in the document’s provenance and connection to the Howard family, but also in Richard of England’s message within the proclamation that may relate to Richard III, and which Sir Francis Bacon would later recognise as such. The proclamation champions the good rule of the old Yorkist order, which King Richard (IV) now intended to restore for the benefit and welfare of his people. In doing so, he would remove Henry VII, his ‘extreme mortal enemy’, who had ‘by subtle false means’ obtained the crown. Richard adds that ‘as soon as he [Henry] had knowledge of our being alive, imagined, compassed and wrought all the subtle ways and means he could devise to our final destruction’.
Judith has uncovered the most contemporaneous copy, which is held in the National Library of Wales. Richard of England would be denounced by the Tudor government as a boatman’s son from Tournai in France and given the names ‘Perkin Warbeck’, ‘Piers Osbeck’, ‘Pierce Osbeck’, ‘Petyr Osbek’, ‘Piris (Pedro) Osbeque’, ‘Piris Uberque’, ‘Styenbek’ and ‘Pierrechon de Werbecque’.
The Proclamation
Richard by the grace of God King of England & of France, Lord of Ireland, Prince of Wales, to all those who see, hear or read this proclamation we send greetings. In our tender age we escaped, with God’s help, from the Tower of London, and were secretly taken overseas (to various countries), where we remained for a number of years. Then Henry, son of Edmund Tudor, created Earl of Richmond, son of Owen Tudor, who was born in Wales in lowly circumstances, came to our realm of England, and by dishonest means obtained the Crown that was rightfully ours.
Henry Tudor is our mortal enemy. As soon as he found out that we were alive, he tried various means to bring about our destruction. Not only has he tried to trick you by declaring that we are an imposter, and giving us false names, he has also tried to prevent us from reaching this realm. He has offered large sums of money to the rulers of several countries to apprehend us, and has tried to persuade some of our personal servants to murder us, and to persuade others, such as Sir Robert Clifford, to leave our service and our cause. In order to fund these malicious intentions he has exacted money from the people of this realm to their great detriment and impoverishment. Yet, by God’s grace, we have safely crossed land and sea and are now with the high and mighty prince, our dearest cousin the King of Scots, who, without any inducement, has kindly and lovingly supported us and has crossed into England with us. We shall openly show ourselves to you and expose Henry Tudor’s lies. Everyone of reason and discretion will understand that Tudor would not have gone to the aforesaid expense and trouble if he really believed that we are an imposter. Regarding yourselves, it is the intention of our dearest cousin [the King of Scots], that if he sees our subjects and vassals giving us sufficient allegiance and support to defeat our enemies, he is determined to return quietly with his forces to Scotland without inflicting any suffering on the inhabitants of England.
In order to bolster his false position Henry Tudor has caused to be murdered many nobles of our realm, whom he feared, and whose loyalty he doubted. These include Lord Fitzwalter, Sir William Stanley, Sir Robert Chamberlain, Sir Simon Mountford, Sir Robert Ratcliffe, William Daubeney, Humphrey Stafford and many others who have paid dearly with their lives. Some nobles are now in the Sanctuary and Henry Tudor has long kept in prison our right entirely beloved cousin Edward, son and heir to our uncle the Duke of Clarence, as well as other nobles, withholding from them their rightful inheritance in order to stop them giving us their rightful support. He has also forced certain of our sisters, and the sister of the Earl of Warwick, as well as other ladies of royal blood, to marry his own kindred and supporters of low estate, thus undermining the established nobles who were most likely to support us. The only people he trusts and favours are wretches of low birth such as Bishop Foxe, Smyth, Bray, Lovell, Oliver King, Sir Charles Somerset, David Owen, Rysley, Sir John Turberville, Tyler, Robert Lytton, Guilford, Cheyne, Emson, James Hobert, John Cutt, Garth, Hanson, Wyatt and other such wretches and villains, who by clever means and by robbing the people, have been the principal agents of the misrule that now pertains in England.
We have also been reliably informed that Tudor, with complete disregard for the wealth and prosperity of this realm and with regard only for his own safety and well-being, has sent his adherents out of this country with the nation’s treasure, so that he can take personal possession of it, if he is forced to flee. This will bring peril and insecurity to the whole population. In order to protect yourselves and the well-being of this land it is necessary for you to use every means and effort to prevent Henry Tudor escaping. Whoever apprehends him will be rewarded according to their estate and degree, so that the most lowly will be given a thousand pounds in money, as well as property with the yearly value of 400 marks in perpetuity.
We are also aware of the great offences daily committed by Henry Tudor and his adherents in destroying the liberties and authority of our holy mother church to the great displeasure of almighty God, besides committing manifold treasons, abominable murders, manslaughters, robberies, extortions, the daily robbing of the people by the imposition of tithes, taxes, feudal levies, benevolences, and other unlawful exactions to the great detriment of this realm. We will make it our personal responsibility to protect you and redress the damage done to you by Tudor’s administration. We will act, not as a stepmother but as a true mother who sees their child languishing or in peril, and we will put an end to misrule, and punish those responsible. We will also by God’s grace and the help and assistance of the great lords of royal blood, and with the counsel of otherwise people of approved policy, prudence and experience, ensure the proper administration of justice based on the good laws and customs that were established by our noble predecessors the Kings of England, according to their original purpose and meaning. Those who have been wrongly disinherited will find justice, and all other wrongs and injuries, both spiritual and temporal, inflicted on the subjects of our realm will be redressed.
Trade with other countries will be conducted in a manner that will benefit the whole realm and all the aforementioned levies and unlawful impositions and exactions will be exposed and abolished except in those circumstances that have been established by custom and use.
We desire that all those who have actively or covertly acted against us since the reign of Henry Tudor (excepting those who have plotted to kill us), will receive a full pardon and have their rightful lands and goods restored to them if they henceforth support us with their bodies and their goods. Be assured that those who continue to stand with our enemies and act against us will be treated as traitors and rebels and punished accordingly. Those subjects who aid and support us to the best of their ability, or provide food for our forces (for which they will be paid) we will treat lovingly and justly, provided that upon hearing our proclamation, they will, according to their duty and honour, equip themselves for battle and join us wherever we shall happen to be. In so doing, they shall find us to be their right, especial and singular good lord and their services will be rewarded as they deserve.
R
National Library of Wales: BL, Harley MS 283, ff.123v–124v. Transcription on behalf of The Missing Princes Project by Dr Judith Ford, 14 June 2021. Copy dated 1616.
For Judith Ford’s transcription and article on the proclamation, see ‘The King’s Speech’ at: www.revealingrichardiii.com/two-pretenders.html#kings-speech
Appendix 10
Maat, and Black & Hackman Reports
‘Bones in the Urn’, 14 June 2018, 11 November 2021
The Maat Report (2018)
Background
In August 2017, leading Dutch bioanthropologist Professor George Maat agreed to undertake an analysis of images and skiagrams (X-ray images) taken of bones discovered in London in the mid-seventeenth century. Maat was approached to do the analysis by Dutch archaeologist Jean Roefstra. Although the analysis was done blind in order to eliminate any potential prejudice, the analysis was on behalf of Philippa Langley’s The Missing Princes Project. The bones in question had been exhumed and investigated in the early twentieth century when fifteen black and white photographs and five skiagrams were taken and a report written by an osteologist and dental expert.
For the present analysis, Maat was given copies of the original photographs and skiagrams, and the original twentieth-century report. The report was redacted to include factual information only, in order to eliminate any historical references and bias from the early twentieth-century analysis.
Summary of Findings
Analysis of the photographs of the remains concluded the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) present as being two.
However, the ‘Bones of Which Exact Identification is Uncertain’ section from the twentieth-century report contains some ambiguous information. This comes from the following line of the original report: ‘the lines of union of the three primary parts of the vertebrae still apparent’. Probably, the reporters mean the fusion line between both halves of the arch and the fusion lines of both neuro-central junctions (overall age interval 3–24 years). But if the reporters mean the fusion lines between the vertebral body with arch and the two circular epiphyses (fusing 18–24 years of age), then there is a third, much older, individual in the assemblage. But no other bones typical for such a maturation phase were seen or reported.
The age range of the set of remains called ‘PS1’ is recorded as being from 9.5–12.5 years, with the second set, ‘PS2’, being from 7–11 years. It is likely that PS1 is the more mature and therefore has a more advanced calendar age, but this is not certain from this analysis. The age range in terms of calendar age deviation per maturity/development phase may vary between the two sets of remains within a 3–4-years-wide range age gap.
The photographs do not show any anatomical structure giving a clue on the sex development of the contributors to this assemblage of remains. The photographs depict individuals who are both developmentally too immature to show distinct sex features. However, the development of the older set of remains (PS1) suggests it is more likely this person is female, since the assessed age at death concords better with the supposed fusion time of the distal epiphysis of metatarsal I (also marked PS1). In terms of the younger set of remains (PS2), nothing can be seen in the X-ray images with regard to the lower canine tooth (unerupted) in the lower jaw as being an indicator of sex as it is too small/slender.1
The assessed age at death of the detected individuals that contributed to the assemblage does not exclude consanguinity. Only DNA analysis may produce a calculated conclusion on this issue.
No indications were found on the cause of death, and no date (period) for the age of the remains. The presence of large Wormian bones does not indicate any particular date (period) for the remains.
Conclusion
Minimum Number of Individuals present is two (with a possibility of three, as above), with one set of remains (PS1) more likely to be female than male. Consanguinity between the two main sets of remains is possible via the age range. No cause of death indicators were present, and no date (period) age for any of the remains was identifiable.
‘Analysis of Bones Discovered in London in the Mid-C17th and Exhumed in the Early C20th for Investigation – Summary of a Modern Analysis’ by Professor George Maat (14 June 2018)
The Black & Hackman Report (2021)
Papers presented for comment by Philippa Langley:
1. Tanner, L.E., and Wright, W.W., ‘Recent Investigations Regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower’, Archaeologia, 84: 1–26 (1934).
2. Hammond, P.W, and Whyte, W.J., ‘The Sons of Edward IV: A Re-examination of the Evidence on their Deaths and on the Bones in Westminster Abbey’, in P. Hammond (ed.), Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law (London: Richard III and Yorkist History Trust) pp. 121–70 (1986).
3. Molleson, T., ‘Anne Mowbray and the Princes in the Tower: A Study in Identity’, The London Archaeologist, 5: 258–262 (1987).
4. Ashdown-Hill, J., ‘Hypodontia?’ in The Mythology of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, Chapter 28, pp. 187–93 (2018).
5. Moran, G., ‘The Search for the MtDNA of the Princes’, Bulletin, December 2018, pp. 41–44.
Statement
We provide this report based only on the papers above and do so in the light of forensic standards.
The Tanner and Wright paper raises some interesting questions.
1. Within the paper, the bones have been ‘assumed’ to be of the Princes but there is no evidential proof to support.
2. The questions asked in this paper exhibit confirmation bias, i.e., ‘If the bones are human are they of two boys of an age with the Princes?’ More appropriate questions would be: Are the remains human? How long have the individuals been deceased? Are the remains intact? How many individuals are represented? Are the remains male or female? What is the age at death for the remains? What are the predicted heights of the individuals? Is there evidence of pathology or trauma? Is there evidence of a cause of death? Can DNA be extracted?
3. Additional questions might include: Does history tell of other children who died in the Tower? Have the bones been dated? Surely all that can be inferred is that they died before 1674 which assumes that the bones found in the box in 1674 are the ones interred in the urn? What were the dimensions of the box in which the bones were found? Was it big enough just for bones or was it large enough to take the bodily remains of the individuals? Were there any indications on the inside of the box that might have been left by the decomposition of soft tissue? Was the box retained?
4. Tanner and Wright’s examination of the contents of the urn reported that two individuals were represented and that they were of two children some 2–3 years apart in age.
5. It is unfortunate that the photographic and radiographic images are incomplete.
6. The age of the older child was predicated on the maturation of the axis (C2) and the first sacral vertebra (S1). C2 was ‘without the apical part of the odontoid process’. This does not mean that the ossiculum terminale had not formed, only that it had not yet fused as the apex may simply not have been recovered. A bifid odontoid process is present in most individuals younger than 12 years of age (although it can be older) – in agreement with Tanner and Wright. However, an ossiculum terminale persistens Bergmen can occur where fusion does not take place. A separate bone can also arise as a result of trauma. The rationale for why the C2 could have originated from the older child has some validity, but it should be borne in mind that match fitting a C1 to a C2 is not necessarily reliable given the incongruity of the joint surfaces.
Age was also assigned based on the maturation of the first sacral vertebra. The laminae of the vertebra were ‘still half an inch apart’ which the authors take as corroboration of an age less than 13 years. If the laminae are to fuse, then they will do so variably between the ages of 7 and 15 years. However, these laminae may not fuse and remain patent throughout life, as described by Molleson (1987). This is referred to as spina bifida occulta. It should be noted that all aspects of age estimation in juvenile are sex dependent with the females reaching a comparable stage of maturation to males, around 2 years earlier. Therefore, determining the sex of the remains is paramount to establishing a confident estimation of age at death.
