Originally published on 24th November 2024
This is the initial section of the theory regarding the skeletons of the Princes in The Tower. For the subsequent section, click here.
In the summer of 1933, two skeletons from Westminster Abbey were excavated and reexamined to clarify speculations about the identities of the boys buried in an urn by Sir Christopher Wren. Wren was the leading architect during the reign of Charles II and witnessed the burial in 1678. The urn was believed to contain the remains of the teenage King Edward V and his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, the Duke of York. However, due to limited access to forensic testing at the time, the identification of the supposed boys was based on assumptions influenced by Tudor propaganda.
The examination was conducted by two leading anthropologists from Cambridge University, Lawrence E. Turner and Professor William Wright. They were assisted by Dr. George Northcroft, a dental surgeon with experience in studying the dentition of children.
Turner and Wright believed that the bones belonged to the "Princes in the Tower," based on the similar ages of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury and a shared genetic condition with their paternal grandmother.
Coincidentally, on the anniversary of the coronation of the boy's uncle, Richard III, on July 6, 1933—five decades later—the Lady Chapel in the Abbey was closed to the public, and the bones were unearthed from the urn. Five days after the examination, the remains were reburied along with additional artefacts. According to the Westminster Abbey website, the reburial is described as follows:
The Lady Chapel was closed during the examination and on 11th July the bones were carefully wrapped up and replaced in the urn by the Dean [William Foxley Norris], with a parchment recording what had been done. He then read part of the burial service and the urn was re-sealed.
Nearly a century later, the possibility of excavating the bones from the infamous urn had presented a slim chance. Despite the calls for modern DNA analysis of the skeletons, the Church of England prohibits further investigations. Others have shared their feelings against the re-examination of the skeletons. The late Queen Regent Elizabeth II famously refused to analyse another despite being permitted to unearth the skeleton of Richard III back in 2012. However, it's been rumoured that King Charles III has expressed an interest and would be supportive of the plans. However, this would need to be a joint decision as the Dean of Westminister has to agree to open the urn. If a re-examination was to be given the green light, could this second analysis hold the key to solving the mystery for good?
In this post, I will be sharing the story of the skeletons of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, the Duke of York and what scientists, writers and historians have seen and debated about the identities and whereabouts of the boys. All the evidence I've found has come from scientific papers from the 1930s onwards and the writings of historians and accounts like John Ashdown-Hill, Philipa Langely and Matthew Lewis. I will also conduct my theory on the matter. Since some evidence may be laborious (considering the resources present different findings and continue to create loopholes), I would summarise that my opinion will either agree with one source or distance myself from another individual's opinion. However, all opinions are to be respected. If you have your theory or opinion, you are welcome to share them in the comments.
Case 1: Stories of the Skeletons During the Tudor & Stuart Monarchies
To begin our investigation, we need to examine the history of the skeletons before 1674.
While researching the skeletons from the Tudor and Stuart Monarchies, I found that many of the resources offered little substantial evidence. It appeared to me that much of the information about the skeletons was fictional. Most sources seem to point to Tudor propaganda, especially the well-known figure who accused Richard III, Sir Thomas More. In his work, "The History of King Richard the Third", More discusses the weak evidence regarding the plot to "murder" the princes, influenced by the sources he used.
More's investigations into Richard III and his involvement in the princes' disappearance likely stemmed from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor John Morton. More served as a page in Morton's household and learned during that time that Morton was a staunch opponent of Richard. Morton's opinion undoubtedly influenced More's decision to publish his manuscript, which was incomplete and did not appear until 1557. Many historians and enthusiasts, including myself, believe that More's biased narrative has tarnished the reputation of Richard III's reign, regardless of one's stance on the matter.
Regarding the skeletons before 1674, various sources have emerged about their whereabouts following the alleged murder.
In "The Mythology of The Princes in the Tower", John Ashdown-Hill recounts several accounts detailing how the skeletons were mistreated in the Tower of London. Ashdown-Hill refers to More's description of how the boys were murdered by Sir James Tyrell, who supposedly "buried" them under "a great heap of stones" after receiving the dead bodies of the Princes. Moreover, More writes that a priest related to the Constable of the Tower later took up the bodies to re-bury them in an unrecorded and suitable location.
However, Helen Maurer, the author of the report "Bones in the Tower: A Discussion of Time, Place, and Circumstance," mentions another individual who was involved but is seldom suspected to be a murderer: Sir Robert Brackenbury. Brackenbury was the Constable of the Tower at the time of the disappearance of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury.
According to More's account regarding Brackenbury's supposed involvement in the murder, the narrative suggests that after the coronation of Richard III, the newly crowned king issued a written order to kill Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. More claims that Brackenbury responded by saying, "that he would never put them to death, though he should die therefore." Knowing that Brackenbury would have refused the command, More asserts that Richard III directed Tyrrell and his servants, Miles Forset and John Dighton, with a letter instructing them to kill the brothers.
While More presents the five W's surrounding the situation, it is clear that this narrative is a credible theory presumably conveyed by Morton. Through this, More accepted the "facts" of Richard's guilt and the burial of the skeletons under the stairs.
Continuing with the resources mentioned in "The Mythology of The Princes in the Tower", Ashdown-Hill refers to a separate account by Richard Grafton, who discusses an unnamed priest who decided to place the bodies in a lead-weighted coffin before disposing of them in the River Thames to prevent their discovery.
There have been claims regarding the bodies that were left in the Tower, alleging that they were never given a proper burial. One account suggests that their remains were found under a pile of stones and debris, while other reports indicate that the bodies were left on a table either in the Lanthorn Tower or the Garden Tower, where they began the processes of autolysis, eventually reducing to mere bones. The specific location of these presumed bones has not been disclosed, but it's believed they may have been found in a small room.
Helen Maurer provided more detail in her case study, mentioning Jo Webb, who wrote a note on the flyleaf of a copy of More's book:
when ye Lo: Grey of Wllton and Sir Walter Raleigh were prisoners in ye Tower, the wall of ye passage to ye King’s Lodgings then sounding hollow, was taken down ‘- and at ye place marked A was found a little roome about 7 or 8 ft square, wherein. there stood a Table and uppon it ye bones of two children supposed of 6 or 8 yeares - i. of age, which by ye aforesaid nobles and all present were credibly believed to bee ye carcasses of Edward ye 5th and his brother the then Duke of York.
Webb names three men who became eyewitnesses to this discovery in c. 1597. These men were Mr. Johnson, Mr. Palmer and Mr Henry Cogan who were officers of the mint. Maurer also mentions a similar account by Louis Aubery du Maurier nearly a century later (c. 1680) when he writes that in:
Queen Elizabeth’s time, the Tower of London being full of prisoners of State, on account of the frequent conspiracies against her person, as they were troubled to find room for them all, they bethought themselves of opening a door of a chamber that had been walled up for a long time; and they found in this chamber upon a bedtwo little carcasses with two halters around their necks. These were the skeletons of King Edward V and the Duke of York, his brother, whom their uncle Richard the cruel had strangled to get the Crown . . . But the prudent Princess, not willing to revive the memory of such an execrable deed, had the door walled up as before. However, I learned that this same door having been opened a short time ago, and the skeletons being found in the same place, the King of England, out of compassion that these two princes were deprived of burial, or from other reasons that I am ignoram of, has resolved to erect a Mausoleum, and have them transported to Westminster Abbey where the tombs of the Kings are.
This story originates from The Netherlands during the reign of Maurice of Nassau. However, this assertion fails to present the facts, making it easily debunked.
In his 1619 published manuscript of "The History of Richard III", Sir George Buck released the first record of other sets of bones, which Ashdown-Hill quotes as being "tentatively identified as the sons of Edward IV." In his manuscript, Buck describes how, around 1610, two skeletons were discovered. Buck posits that one skeleton is likely one of the boys, while he suggests that the second skeleton may be the remains of an ape.
It's worth noting that between the 13th and 19th centuries, the Tower of London housed exotic animals within the Royal Menagerie, located at the western entrance to the Tower. This included a monkey house situated in a furnished room where visitors could interact closely with the animals. This room is believed to have been near the Crown Jewels. Many of these exotic animals were collected by, or given as gifts to, the monarchs of England (and later the United Kingdom). The menagerie included monkeys and great apes. There are accounts of monkeys allowed to roam freely in the Royal Menagerie, but this often led to them pestering visitors, stealing items, and even attacking people. The conditions for these animals in the menagerie and monkey house were tragic; healthy animals that arrived often succumbed to disease, malnutrition, human cruelty, and stress from captivity.
There are surviving accounts of baboons residing within the Tower's walls. However, there is only one recorded instance of a great ape in the 18th century, specifically the death of a Sumatran orangutan in 1725. No additional records indicate that other apes were housed in the Tower during the time of the princes' disappearance. It is possible that this orangutan may have escaped from the menagerie and subsequently "died" in an area within the Tower.
Although an 'ape' is mentioned in the accounts, it may be a minor correction to suggest that it could have been a monkey that escaped. However, there is no further evidence to substantiate this.
This raises the question: Why's there speculation on the other skeleton being one of the boys? This inquiry leads to my following argument.
Case Study 2: Other Skeletons That Were Discovered In The Tower
The mention of the Ape's skeleton in the previous case raises another question: Were there other skeletons exhumed before and after 1674? The answer is yes.
In addition to the burials in the Royal Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula, there have been two confirmed cases of skeletons unearthed within the walls of the Tower.
The first discovery occurred in 1977 when archaeologists found the skeleton of a young male from the Iron Age in the southeast corner of the Tower, at the site of the medieval palace. This skeleton is believed to date back to AD 70. Unfortunately, there are no further records regarding this skeleton, and it is not expected to be one of the Princes in the Tower.
The second finding took place in 2019 when two skeletons—an adult female and a child—were discovered in remnants of a medieval floor outside St. Peter ad Vincula. Both skeletons were found lying on their backs. After examination, archaeologists and specialists agreed that the skeletons were buried between 1450 and 1550. The estimated ages suggest that the female skeleton belonged to someone who was 35 to 45 years old, while the child would have been around 7 years old. Both are believed to have lived in the Tower.
Although these skeletons are not connected to the Princes, there is a possibility that more skeletons are buried within the Tower of London. To date, no male skeletons have been assessed for their estimated date of death through DNA analysis. I believe the skeletons of the Princes are not buried on the Tower's grounds. While we have evidence of children who lived within the Tower, it seems unlikely that royal skeletons would have been buried outside the Church of St. Peter ad Vincula. Given their royal status, their burial would not have been neglected or discarded in a "heap of stairs" or left on a table. If they were buried within the Tower, I feel they would have been interred inside St. Peter ad Vincula or further away from the City of London (but we will explore that in a future post).
So, if they were not buried inside the Tower, who were the skeletons recovered from the staircase leading into St. John's Chapel?
Case Study 3: The Discovery of The Bones & First Burial (To Be Continued)
While modern forensic evidence remains unavailable to identify the skeletons, it is salient to recount the discovery of the bones and examine the available evidence surrounding the initial burial and the 1933 examination.
I believe that the boys were not buried in the Tower of London; instead, I suspect that their skeletons may be located elsewhere. I will not go into further detail here, but I plan to dedicate another post to summarizing this information.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the Princes's skeletons are still undiscovered? If the skeletons aren’t in the Tower of London, where do you think they might be? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
Author's Note: All resources I have used are based on the sources from these websites and books. This information could change at any time if new evidence comes to light. Find below all the resources I've used including texts from authors who published works from c. 1513 onwards:
References and Sources:
Ashdown-Hill, John, The Mythology of the 'Princes in The Tower' [Amberley], 2018 [Edition 2 - 2020], '26: What Bones Were Found At The Tower of London And When? [P171 - 176],
Hammond, P.W, 'The Bones of The Princes In Westminster Abbey' [Museum of London], 1986
Jackson, Amanda, 'The skeletons of a woman and child were discovered under the Tower of London’s chapel' [CNN Travel, Thu October 24, 2019]
Knowles, Rachel, 'A Regency History guide to the Royal Menagerie at the Tower of London' [Regency History, October 13th 2016]
Maurer, Helen, 'Bones in the Tower: A Discussion of Time, Place and Circumstance. Part 1' [Richard III Society]
More, Thomas, 'The History of King Richard the Third' c. 1513 (Student Edition)1
Thornton, Tim, University of Huddersfield, 'More on a Murder: The Deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower and Historiographical Implications for the Regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII' [The Journal of the Historical Association and John Wiley & Sons Ltd], 2020
Website References:
Comments