The Princes in the Tower, page 40
7. Much was made of age determination from the teeth and evidence from the alveolar bone. Only the right half of the mandible was available for the younger child and both maxillae and mandible were present for the older child although all teeth were missing. In the younger child, the maturation of the incisors was determined from the alveolar sockets. The canine was unerupted with the root described as half formed. The first premolar was unerupted (as seen from radiograph) and the root half formed. The second premolar was unerupted with the crown only formed and this is confirmed from the radiograph. The crypt for the first molar is present, but the tooth is not. The second molar was found loose in the urn, was represented by the crown only with no sign of root formation. Fig 4 in their report shows the second molar in position, presumably after a retro fit. The suggestion was that age at death was between 9 and 11 years, which is not unreasonable, but we would widen the range to between 8–12 which is more in keeping with Molleson’s suggestion. There were no teeth available for the older child and age was undertaken by analysis of alveolar morphology alone – this is not something that would be advocated in a forensic investigation. The crown of an alleged third molar was found separate in the urn. It was identified as being from the left side and about ‘one third formed’. On the basis of the alveolar status and an alleged third molar, the individual was aged to between 12 and 13 years. Whilst we do not disagree that this is a possibility, we would by necessity, given the nature of the material, widen the age range from between 12–15 years, again largely in keeping with the views of Molleson.
8. In relation to age estimation, the figures of the ribs, clavicles and scapulae appear to confirm the juvenile nature of the remains but it is unfortunate that there are no descriptions of the glenoid surfaces of the scapulae as they may have assisted in age estimation.
9. The presence of Wormian bones were offered as evidence on consanguinity as was the presence of hypodontia (absence of tooth formation). Whilst it is accepted that both features have a genetic predisposition, it is a large leap to accept their presence/absence as evidence to support consanguinity.
10. Mention was made of a stain on the facial skeleton of the younger individual. Whether it is a blood stain would require laboratory analysis and we would not comment on whether such staining could be evidence of suffocation using a pillow.
11. Height was calculated at 4ft 10ins and 4ft 6.5ins using tables available at the time. It was suggested from the bones that they were ‘of slender form’ but this is not something that would be suggested in a forensic context as it is unreliable to predict body mass from bone alone.
12. The suggestions as to the position of the bodies within the box are supposition.
13. Page 22 states that the lines of union of the three primary parts of the vertebrae were still visible and attributed this to the older of the two individuals – we believe that could be the case for either individual. Within the section on the skull, we do not recognise the description surrounding the fusion pattern associated with the jugum sphenoidale and the pre-sphenoid.
14. Page 23 – measurements. A clavicle of 113mm is consistent with a child of around 12–14 years and one of 96mm is consistent with a child of around 8–10 years. A humeral length of 242mm is consistent with a child of around 9–11 years and one of 222mm is consistent with a child of around 8–10 years. An ulnar length of 195mm is consistent with a child of around 9–10 years and one of 182mm is consistent with a child of between 8–9 years of age. A femoral length of 383mm is consistent with a child of around 12 years (lengths thereafter include epiphyses) and a length of 345mm is consistent with a child of between 9 and 11 years. A tibial length of 306mm is consistent with a child of around 11–12 years and a length of 274mm is consistent with a child of around 9–10 years of age.
15. In relation to the summary on page 24:
1. No comment.
2. There was nothing presented that ‘confirms’ identity as set against modern forensic standards.
3. Consanguinity is possible but not certain.
4. We would question the stain being blood.
5. The older child was aged at between 12–13 years. We would widen this range to 9–15 years based on the evidence available.
6. The age of the younger child was given as between 9–11 years. We would widen this range to 8–12 based on the evidence available.
7. An additional point is that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that both sets of remains are male.
In forensic terms we would agree that the remains in the photographs and radiographs are human. We would agree that they are not complete, some elements are missing and some are fragmented. We would agree that at least two individuals are represented. We would agree that both are juvenile with one being aged between around 9–15 years and the other most likely being somewhat younger, between around 8–12 years. There is no evidence to support sex of either of the sets of remains. There is no scientific evidence to support a date of death. There is no strong evidence to support consanguinity.
Hammond and Whyte (1986):
1. Hammond and Whyte introduce a question as to whether the remains found in 1674 are the same as the remains interred in 1678. In forensic terms, a chain of custody would have been set up to ensure that such doubt could not be introduced.
2. There is a reasonable argument that neither Tanner nor Wright were working ‘blind’ as both were aware that they could be looking at the bones of the Princes and were therefore subject to the possibility of both conscious and unconscious bias.
3. The authors are correct to debate the value of using modern day standards to age archaeological material. Individuals developed under different nutritional, environmental and pathogen burdens and so are not directly comparable. For this reason we have extended the possible age ranges and cannot be prescriptive.
4. Sex estimation from the juvenile pelvis is not considered viable in forensic investigations.
Molleson (1987):
1. Molleson addresses the issue of the sex of the skeletal remains and confirms that estimation of this in juvenile individuals is ‘notoriously unreliable’. She considered sexual dimorphism in the dentition which exists prior to pubertal change and so is influenced less dramatically than skeletal elements. She also considered ‘relative’ differences in development both dentally and skeletally. Neither approach would be acceptable for forensic identification and the only approach we would take for sex determination from juvenile remains is through DNA analysis.
2. Evidence of consanguinity. As with Tanner and Wright, she considered Wormian bones and hypodontia. Neither approach would be acceptable as a forensic standard for establishing consanguinity which would require DNA analysis.
3. Both Warwick (Roger) in his paper on Anne Mowbray, and Molleson mentioned ‘a rare anomaly’ of an alleged distal epiphysis which was partly fused to the shaft of each of the first metacarpals. These have since been shown to be a normal process of maturation where there is no separate epiphysis.
4. Molleson considered the dentition and the alveolar evidence as well as bone maturation and bone lengths. It is interesting that the author does not attempt to give a final age range and only states that ‘the skeletons are those of juveniles’.
5. The report states that ‘the odontoid process of the axis or second cervical vertebra is not ossified’. This is misleading as the odontoid process is clearly ossified and I suspect that Molleson means the ossiculum terminale. We cannot say whether the ossiculum was ossified, all we can say was that it had most likely not yet fused and perhaps had understandably not been recovered with the remains.
6. We are unclear how Molleson reached the conclusion that ‘… and one wishes to propose that they died or were killed at the same time, the most likely period that is compatible with the dental and skeletal age for both skeletons would be some time in the year 1484’. An estimation of the date of death for forensic purposes would require laboratory testing.
Ashdown-Hill (2018):
1. The paper summarises that via hypodontia it cannot be proved that Anne Mowbray was related to either of the Tower skeletons.
Moran (2018):
1. The premise of this paper is that mtDNA testing is required to answer some of the unresolved questions and we would agree with this.
Recommendations for further tests should a re-examination be granted. These should be as non-invasive as possible but it is important to state that most are destructive in nature:
1. Full photographic and radiographic catalogue be taken. 3d scans of the bones would also make the material available for study without recourse to further disturbance of the remains.
2. mtDNA analysis be undertaken for the sake of genealogical relationship matching.
3. Nuclear DNA analysis to be attempted to determine sex of the remains.
4. Dating methodologies be employed.
5. Isotope analysis be employed that could assist with dietary and geographical origins.
Views on previous publications relating to the ‘Princes in the Tower’, prepared by Professors Sue Black and Lucina Hackman, 11 November 2021.
Timelines
Please note: All timelines follow the modern calendar year of 1 January–31 December, not the medieval calendar of 25–24 March.
1483: Protectorate
March 1483
London: Thomas, Marquess of Dorset, secures Tower and armoury.
Friday, 28 March–Sunday, 30 March 1483
Westminster, London: Edward IV falls ill.
Wednesday, 2 April 1483
Westminster: Edward IV sends letter to John, Lord Howard at Stoke-by-Nayland, Suffolk.
Thursday, 3 April 1483
Westminster: death of Edward IV.
Friday, 4 April 1483
Howard receives Edward IV’s letter.
Sunday, 6 April 1483
City of York receives news of Edward IV’s death.
Monday, 7 April 1483
York Minster: dirge sung for Edward IV.
Howard leaves Stoke-by-Nayland with fifty-plus men.
Wednesday, 9 April 1483
Howard arrives at Westminster.
Death of Edward IV announced.
Monday, 14 April 1483
Ludlow: Edward V informed of king’s death.
North: Gloucester probably informed of king’s death.
Wednesday, 16 April 1483
Edward V’s letter: no mention of Edward IV’s will or Gloucester’s Protectorate.
Thursday, 17 April 1483
Two-week anniversary of Edward IV’s death: king’s funeral begins.
York Minster: Requiem Mass for Edward IV. Gloucester leads north in allegiance to Edward V.
Friday, 18 April 1483
St George’s Chapel, Windsor: burial of Edward IV.
Before Sunday, 20 April 1483
London: meetings of Woodvilles and Councillors; Gloucester’s Protectorate set aside.
Sir Edward Woodville awarded control of English fleet; Dorset empowered to raise forces.
c. Tuesday, 22 April 1483
York: Gloucester and 200–300 northern retinue in mourning leave for rendezvous with Edward V at Northampton.
Thursday, 24 April 1483
Ludlow: Edward V leaves with Rivers and escort of 2,000 for rendezvous with Gloucester at Northampton.
Tuesday, 29 April 1483
Northampton: Gloucester arrives, joined by Rivers and companions.
Buckingham and escort arrive later.
Edward V’s party overnights at Grafton Woodville, escort billeted at Stony Stratford.
Richard Grey and company arrive at Grafton.
Wednesday, 30 April 1483
Rivers, Grey and others arrested.
Edward V returns with Gloucester to Northampton.
Thursday, 1 May 1483
Northampton: Edward V received by dignitaries.
Rivers and Grey taken north.
London: after failing to raise an armed force, Elizabeth Woodville takes sanctuary at Westminster.
Southampton: Edward Woodville impounds £10,250 in gold from a ship.
Saturday, 3 May 1483
First month-mind of Edward IV’s death; Howard arranges two masses.
Edward V at St Albans with Gloucester and Buckingham.
Sunday, 4 May 1483
London: Edward V enters capital with Gloucester and Buckingham.
Edward V resides at Bishop’s Palace.
Monday, 5 May–Saturday, 10 May 1483
King’s Council: Gloucester appointed Protector of Realm.
Edward Woodville ordered to return with fleet.
Howard sends thirty-eight men home.
Monday, 19 May 1483
Edward V moves to Tower of London for coronation on Sunday, 22 June.
Friday, 23 May 1483
King’s Council: leading members deliver draft oath for Elizabeth Woodville’s safety if she agrees to leave sanctuary.
Tuesday, 3 June 1483
Second month-mind of Edward IV’s death; Lady Howard gives offerings.
Monday, 9 June 1483
King’s Council: decision to recommend Parliament to continue Protectorate after coronation.
Edward Woodville absconds.
Tuesday, 10 June–Wednesday, 11 June 1483
Protector appeals for help from north against Woodville plots.
Friday, 13 June 1483
Weapons in King’s Council; plot against Protector uncovered.
Hastings executed; Morton and Rotherham arrested.
Monday, 16 June 1483
Tower: Richard of York joins Edward V in Royal Apartments.
1483: Constitutional Crisis
Tuesday, 17 June 1483
King’s Council: Edward V’s coronation postponed to 9 November 1483.
Wednesday, 18 June 1483
Last signed warrant by Edward V.
Friday, 20 June 1483
Last (London) documents naming Edward V as king.
Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, joins Gloucester.
Sunday, 22 June 1483
London: sermons preached proclaiming illegitimacy of Edward IV’s children and naming Gloucester rightful heir to the throne.
Wednesday, 25 June 1483
Gloucester petitioned to become king by Three Estates of Parliament.
Pontefract: trial and execution of Rivers and Grey by Northumberland.
Thursday, 26 June 1483
Gloucester accepts election and assumes throne as King Richard III.
Saturday, 28 June 1483
Letter sent to Calais verifying King Richard’s election by Three Estates.
Richard III signs first grant at Cittie of London.
Howard created Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England.
Coronation: clothing prepared for ‘Lord Edward, son of King Edward’.
Friday, 4 July 1483
Gloucester and Anne Neville move to Tower prior to coronation.
Sunday, 6 July 1483
Westminster Abbey: joint coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne.
Monday, 7 July – Saturday, 12 July
Greenwich Palace: coronation jousts and celebrations.
Tuesday, 15 July 1483
Buckingham created Lord High Constable of England.
Thursday, 17 July 1483
Robert Brackenbury appointed Constable of Tower of London.
Saturday, 19 July 1483
Royal progress leaves London for Windsor.
The Survival of Edward V
(From 6 July, Coronation of Richard III)
Saturday, 28 June– Thursday 3 July 1483
Richard III coronation; clothing made for (and delivered to) ‘Lord Edward, son of late king Edward the fourth’ (and his henchmen).
Friday, 18 July 1483
Seventeen men paid for their service to Edward IV and ‘Edward Bastard late called king Edward Vth’ (no prayers offered for Edward V).
Monday, 21 July 1483
Abduction attempt at Tower.
Probable date that Buckingham orders brothers separated.
York resides in or near Lions Tower; Edward’s whereabouts unknown.
Thursday, 24 July 1483
Howard arrives in London to carry out king’s orders.
Friday 25 July 1483
Howard appointed Admiral of England.
Sir Edward Brampton granted £350 from Ports.
c. Saturday, 2 August 1483
York’s departure arranged by Howard; Edward’s whereabouts remain secret.
