Originally Published 18th December 2024 [Edited on 19th December 2024]
This is the initial section of the theory regarding the skeletons of the Princes in The Tower. For the previous sections, click here and here.
Well, we finally made it to the final part. After two long posts, this is the moment everyone has been waiting for. What do I think of the newly discovered evidence? My answer to this is that I have a lot to say! However, I will be going into a few sections that have a connection to the new findings because some case studies surprised me.
And with that, I will proceed with my evaluation of the British Channel 5 documentary, "The Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery."
Before proceeding for one final time, I want to clarify that although I deeply respect differing opinions, this critique is based on my perspective and research. In addition to watching the documentary, I have consulted various sources and viewpoints from historians and enthusiasts, including Matthew Lewis, Dan Jones, John Ashdown-Hill, and R.L. Weston of History Calling. Furthermore, I have examined research by Professor Tim Thornton of the University of Huddersfield, who was featured in the documentary, and I plan to revisit the report from the 1933 examination. If you want to access Professor Thornton's articles, I will provide links in the references section. This review will be presented in three parts, with this section as the first. Now, let us proceed with the analysis.
Case 4: Skeletons of the Supposed Princes in the Tower
We will commence with a discussion of the skeletons believed to have belonged to the Princes. I have previously authored a series of blog posts on this subject; therefore, I will refrain from delving into extensive detail here. (Click here for part one and here for part 2.) Instead, I will emphasize several key sources from those writings that were overlooked by the documentary and provide a more comprehensive analysis of these resources.
In the wake of the boys' disappearance, many theories have emerged about their fate. These theories range from accusations against Richard III implicating him in their murder to the Coldridge theory and the story surrounding Perkin Warbeck. Such speculations have generated numerous rumours about the princes' ultimate whereabouts. However, the recent discovery of skeletons presents a mystery, going beyond popular assumptions.
In a recent documentary, historians Tracey Borman and Jason Watkins investigate the site within the White Tower, where a stone wall currently blocks a staircase leading to the initial three individuals. This site is believed to contain the remains of the princes - with the discovery occurring on July 17, 1673. While Borman offers an overview of the events from that day, she does not provide a complete picture of the broader context. Therefore, it is wise to revisit the historical background.
At the time of the skeletal discovery, significant construction work occurred inside the White Tower. The establishment of a new Ordnance office was nearing completion, necessitating the relocation of various facilities, including the Jewel House and the northern end of the King's Lodgings. Simultaneously, a contract was in place to dismantle a section of the Tower adjacent to the White Tower. During the final stages of this work, labourers uncovered an unexpected find beneath the stairs leading to the chapel of the White Tower while they were dismantling the staircase. This event had been documented by the author Francis Sandford:
“Upon Friday the … day of July, An. 1674 …in order to the rebuilding of the several Offices in the Tower, and to clear the White Tower of all contiguous buildings, digging down the stairs which led from the King’s Lodgings, to the chapel in the said Tower, about ten foot in the ground were found the bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest, which upon the survey were found proportionable to ages of those two brothers viz. about thirteen and eleven years. The skull of one being entire, the other broken, as were indeed many of the other bones, also the chest, by the violence of the labourers, who….cast the rubbish and them away together, wherefore they were caused to sift the rubbish and by that means preserved all the bones. The circumstances of the story being considered and the same often discoursed with Sir Thomas Chichley, Master of the Ordinance, by whose industry the new buildings were then in carrying on, and by whom the matter was reported to the King: upon the presumptions that these were the Bones of the said Princes…”
Several individuals have raised concerns regarding Sandford's testimony concerning the foundation level of the skeletons. Among these is Helen Maurer, who contends that the remains were discovered at a foundation level. She asserts that the soil was:
... a depth that would have required scaffolding, and the digging itself would have taken days. The soil level could have risen no more than a couple of feet between 1483 and 1674.
I concur with Maurer's argument concerning the burial practices of the era. Historically, the standard practice in the United Kingdom has involved the interment of coffins at a depth of approximately six inches below the soil surface, with the wooden box typically resting about one inch beneath the surface and not exceeding three feet in total depth. This method results in the coffin being situated beneath both stones and soil.
Borman references the wardrobe accounts associated with Edward IV, which mention velvet pieces discovered within a wooden chest. However, this claim was first noted by Horace Walpole, who utilized it to substantiate his theory regarding Edward V's attendance at Richard III's coronation. This situation raises inquiries regarding potential ambiguities in the accounts or whether this evidence has become subject to debate over time. I align with Watkins in asserting that the available accounts fail to provide the robust evidence required to draw definitive conclusions. This perspective resonates with my understanding.
After the discovery of the remains, Charles II refrained from taking any actions for three years. It was only in 1678, likely influenced by Parliament, that he issued a warrant for the creation of an urn designated for the 'Princes.' The reasons behind the prolonged delay remain ambiguous; however, when the bones were ultimately interred in the urn, the process was carried out hastily. Evidence indicates that along with the human remains, there were also chicken and fish bones, three rusty nails, and debris consistent with refuse from that period.
In the summer of 1933, two skeletons located in Westminster Abbey were excavated and reexamined to clarify the identities of the boys interred in the urn. This examination was undertaken by two prominent anthropologists from Cambridge University, Lawrence E. Turner and Professor William Wright, with assistance from Dr. George Northcroft, a dental surgeon possessing expertise in the study of children's dentition.
Notably, on July 6, 1933, coinciding with the anniversary of the coronation of the boy's uncle, Richard III, the Lady Chapel in the Abbey was closed to the public, and the bones were unearthed from the urn. Following a five-day examination, the remains were reinterred alongside additional artefacts. According to the Westminster Abbey website, the reburial is documented 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.
The documentary presents an argument, referencing the findings of Turner and Wright, that the skeletal remains in question are attributed to the "Princes in the Tower." This assertion is founded upon the similar ages of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, as well as a shared genetic condition inherited from their paternal grandmother. However, Borman and human skeletal biologist Simon Mayes have critically re-evaluated the conclusions drawn by Turner and Wright, suggesting that the estimation of the princes' ages at death was primarily informed by dental analysis.
Borman emphasizes that the development of children's teeth adheres to a regular sequence influenced by factors such as lifestyle and nutrition. In a related context, Mayes articulates that by employing contemporary dental standards, he has deduced that the ages of the skeletons fell within a range of ten to twelve years. In examining bone measurements, Mayes conducted a detailed analysis of a separate ten-year-old skeleton originating from the 1400s. His evaluation concluded that, based on the average measurements of two ten-year-old skeletons, the height would have ranged between three feet, ten inches and four feet, six inches at most. This determination suggests that the skeletal remains reflect adequate nourishment, particularly given that Edward IV was recorded to be notably tall, standing at six feet, four inches during his lifetime.
I concur with Borman's assessment that there are numerous weaknesses in Turner and Wright's 1933 report. Both researchers reached conclusions prematurely by directly attributing the skeletons to the boys, a practice that would not be acceptable in contemporary reports. This reflects the evolution of methodologies over nearly a century. Considering the advancements in analytical techniques today, I believe that the skeletal remains warrant a comprehensive re-examination, contingent upon proper authorization.
Although this analysis has never been conducted previously, I must clarify that I am not a professional in the field of dentistry. Nevertheless, I find Mayes's findings compelling, as they effectively demonstrate the contributions of dental science to broader scientific inquiries. While his research does not yield a conclusive answer, I posit that, based on the height assessment of the skeletal remains, Edward V may have been taller than previously thought. This viewpoint is consistent with Dan Jones's findings, which suggest that Edward V stood at four feet, ten inches. If this estimation is accurate, it raises further queries regarding the conclusions about height claimed by Mayes in "A Damned Discovery." As for Richard of Shrewsbury, the available data remains inconclusive. However, if it is established that Edward was indeed taller, it can be inferred that Richard would likely have been shorter, possibly around four feet, seven inches or less. Again, I am not a scientist; however, if this hypothesis holds, it may imply a notable difference in height between the two boys, suggesting that if either or both had survived, they might have attained heights comparable to or exceeding that of Edward IV.
Transitioning to a different yet relevant subject, I would like to discuss one potential suspect in the alleged murder: Sir James Tyrell.
Case 5: Sir James Tyrell's Confession: Did He Tell the Truth?
I have distanced myself from the documentary regarding this topic, as it does not provide sufficient evidence concerning Sir James Tyrell, instead concentrating on Thomas More. Nevertheless, after conducting independent research into the evidence surrounding the alleged death or survival of the princes, I came across some intriguing information. I will refrain from elaborating extensively here, as I intend to address this topic in greater detail in a forthcoming blog post regarding Tyrell's life. However, I would like to share the information that I believe is pertinent based on my observations.
Following Richard III's purported visit, the princes disappeared. A particularly significant resource summarizing this event is a record dated September 10, 1483, indicating that Sir James Tyrell, a trusted servant of Richard III, was dispatched from York to London to collect the clothing and belongings of the princes and to deliver them to their new owner, the Prince of Wales, Edward of Middleham.
I encountered this source while perusing various books and online materials and found it noteworthy as it represents the final known reference to both Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury.
Upon further investigation, I discovered another relevant source: Rev. W.H. Sewell’s 'Memoirs of Sir James Tyrell', which specifies that Tyrell was one of seven Masters of the Pages during the ceremony for the Prince of Wales. This ceremony is documented to have occurred on September 8, 1483, when Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales at York Minster. Rev. Sewell also asserts that Richard III and his consort, Anne Neville, were re-crowned on the same day; however, it's important to note that there is limited evidence supporting this claim, particularly given that this book was published in 1878.
The inquiry into the potential connection between Tyrell and the possession of the garments and the walls is indeed intriguing. However, it remains unclear when Tyrell acquired these items, as there is no substantive evidence to clarify this matter.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Tyrell held several prominent positions during this period. His brother, Thomas Tyrell, was included in a group of esquires responsible for transporting the body of King Edward IV following his death in April 1483. He also participated in the coronation of Richard III, during which his younger brother Thomas was designated as Master of the Horse. In October 1483, Tyrell was assigned the responsibility of confiscating the estates of Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, and other individuals considered traitors after it was revealed that Buckingham had conspired to restore Edward V to the throne.
In January 1485, Tyrell assumed the role of Governor of Guisnes Castle in France. There were speculations regarding his possible allegiance to Henry VII prior to the Battle of Bosworth; however, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn in this regard. Tyrell received two pardons from Henry VII before being reappointed as Governor in 1486.
The situation took a significant turn in 1501 when he was detained at Guisnes upon the revelation of his support for Edmund de la Pole, the 3rd Duke of Suffolk, in an endeavour to usurp the throne from Henry VII. Subsequently, he was taken to the Tower of London, where he allegedly confessed to the murders of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. The validity of this confession remains questionable.
To investigate this matter further, one should consider the accounts presented in the documentary, particularly those by Thomas More. More’s work, 'History of King Richard III,' attributes Tyrell's admission to the statements made by John Dighton during Tyrell’s imprisonment for treason. This account is met with varying levels of scepticism, especially given More’s close ties to Miles Forest. However, confusion arises due to the existence of two individuals named Miles Forest. R.L. Weston elucidates that the Miles Forest present during the disappearance of the princes was Miles Forest Senior, who died in September 1484, merely a year after the incident. In contrast, Miles Forest Junior was a child at the time of his father’s death, suggesting he may have learned of this assertion from More or another source, though the exact source remains indeterminate.
Although direct evidence of Tyrell's confession is lacking, Professor Tim Thornton has published a paper that provides contextual analysis. In his article, 'Henry VII and the Tower of London,' he explores the frequency of Henry VII’s visits to the Tower, drawing upon chamber accounts, exchequer warrants, and signet warrants issued by Sir John Heron, who served as Treasurer of the Chamber during the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII.
Records indicate that Henry VII notably visited the Tower during pivotal events, including the death of his queen consort, Elizabeth of York, due to complications from childbirth, a jousting tournament that celebrated the wedding of Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, and the preparations for his coronation held between October 28 and 30, 1485.
Additionally, it is interesting to note that £100 was expended on the construction of a new building within the Tower of London during the period from July 1501 to November 1502, warranting further investigation at a later date.
Upon his arrest, Tyrell, alongside his son Thomas and their supporters, was denounced as traitors at Old St. Paul's Cross. After his imprisonment in the Tower, Thornton posits that the situation became increasingly complex; it is referenced in his article—and in the documentary—that Elizabeth of York may have accompanied Henry VII during his inquiry of Tyrell in April 1502, following the death of Arthur, the Prince of Wales. This visit is noted in Thornton’s work:
Privy seal records suggest the king was at Greenwich until 26 April, but that he then moved to the Tower from 27 April, staying until at least 2 May. His location is then unclear until the same records indicate his presence in Greenwich from 7 May. This allows for him to be at the Tower, close to the location of Tyrell’s trial at the London Guildhall on 2 May, and very close to the location of Tyrell’s imprisonment.
About Elizabeth of York's visit, Thornton elaborates:
The potential involvement of Henry VII in the questioning of Tyrell is given greater importance when the presence of the queen, Elizabeth of York (sister of the princes), is also taken into consideration. Elizabeth spent Easter 1502 at Richmond, then travelled to visit the Tower briefly on 1 May, when she was given rosewater by the nuns of the Minories (which lay just to the north of the Tower in the parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate), probably crossing into the City of London immediately after. If there was a confession from Tyrell about the death of the princes, both the king and the queen were present to hear it on these days leading up to the opening of his trial at the Guildhall on 2 May. Elizabeth then left the Tower almost immediately, heading back to Greenwich on 3 May, stopping en route to visit her aunt Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, the dowager Duchess of Suffolk and an elderly woman by this stage, at her house at Stepney. The immediacy of this visit might suggest the importance of any revelations from Tyrell in the Tower, and Elizabeth’s desire to pass news of the princes’ fate to their aunt, the last survivor of their parents’ generation.
While I have confidence in Thornton's source within this article, it does not clarify whether Tyrell made a complete confession. Henry VII never publicly addressed the disappearance of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, and as of December 2024, there remains no existing transcript of Tyrell's confession. However, considering the visits from both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, as well as the meeting between the Queen consort and her aunt, it is conceivable that these interactions were related to updates regarding the investigation, particularly since Edmund de la Pole was a first cousin of Elizabeth of York. This dimension isn't addressed in 'A Damning Discovery,' and it remains uncertain what specifics were discussed in those conversations.
Tyrell was executed on May 6, 1502.
Case 7: The Eureka Moment - Might Be An Older Discovery!
At this juncture, it's important to highlight the moment when significant interest had been generated regarding a particular document. This will, dated 1522, is well-authored by Margaret Capel and includes a remarkable reference to Edward V:
I bequeath to my sonne Sir Giles his fadres Cheyne which was Yonge kynge Edward the Vth.”
While this information is interesting, it's important to note that it may be outdated.
I discovered this information while watching the YouTube Channel History Calling. During research conducted by R.L. Weston, a commenter referenced a quote from Susan James's publication, "Women's Voices in Tudor Wills 1485 - 1603," released in 2015. In her work, James discusses a specific will and includes direct quotes from it:
Margaret Arundell's legacy in 1516 to her son was his 'faders cheyne which was yonge kyng Edwarde the vth's. To have the foresaid stuffe and cheyne during his lyfe wt reasonable werying upon that condicion that after his decease I wille that yt remain and be kept by myn executours to the use of [his young sons] Henry Capell and Edward Capell from one to another'.
Although the term "Chain of Office" was not explicitly mentioned in the will, it is noteworthy that Capel had familial connections to Lancastrian supporters. Her brother, Sir Thomas Arundell, was appointed a Knight of the Bath at the coronation of Richard III; however, he subsequently opposed the Lancastrians by aligning himself with Buckingham's rebellion against the Yorkist king. Furthermore, Capel was connected to Lady Margaret Beaufort through her relation to Thomas Grey.
Upon marrying Sir William Capel, a two-time Lord Mayor of London, she permitted Elizabeth of York, the Queen Consort of Henry VII, to secure a loan of £100. Capel maintained ties to the Tudor court, as her son, Giles, attained a position in the court of Henry VII, where he served as an esquire to the king. During the reign of Henry VIII, he participated in numerous significant events, including the Field of the Cloth of Gold and the baptism of Edward VI.
These connections prompt an important inquiry concerning the initial acquisition of the chain by Sir William Capel. This aspect was not addressed in the documentary, revealing a considerable gap in the narrative. Although the documentary does not perform poorly, it also fails to deliver exemplary insights.
The identification of a Chain of Office is indicative of one's identity; however, the current whereabouts of the chain remain unknown. I contest the assertion that it serves as a definitive piece of evidence. If the chain has indeed survived, one must consider its possible locations. Is it still in the possession of Tyrell's family, or has it remained with the Royal Family throughout the Tudor reign?
Unfortunately, the answers to these questions remain elusive. Additionally, the documentary overlooks a crucial detail: Edward V received his Chain of Office after being knighted as a member of the Order of the Garter in 1475 and was subsequently invested as Prince of Wales. At that time, he was merely five years old. Given that the chain was made of plain gold, one must question whether a young boy would find it excessively heavy to wear. Did he bring it to the Tower of London with him for his coronation? These inquiries remain unanswered.
I intend to create a separate blog post and YouTube video to further explore this topic in greater detail; I encourage interested parties to stay tuned.
Final Conclusion: Was It Worth Watching The Documentary?
In conclusion, we still lack a definitive resolution concerning the fate of the Princes in the Tower. What is clear is that modern DNA analysis is essential for ascertaining whether the remains in question belong to Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. This analytical process represents a crucial element in establishing concrete evidence.
Should the remains be confirmed as those of the princes, I would accept the findings of Ms. Tracy Borman and Mr. Jason Watkins, despite potentially maintaining reservations regarding the prevailing narrative that "Richard III killed his nephews." Conversely, if the remains do not correspond to the boys, it may suggest the possibility of Tudor-era propaganda, that the skeletons were interred at an alternate location, or that they succumbed to the sweating sickness. Furthermore, it remains plausible that they survived and led separate lives.
Given the prevailing uncertainty, it is unproductive to anticipate a definitive resolution or an epiphany moment. We must exercise caution in our research approaches. Funding and resources are derived from various sources, and media portrayals may sometimes contribute to premature conclusions. Nevertheless, this discourse has inspired me to investigate further evidence, and I intend to share additional insights and perspectives in the future. Until we obtain results from a subsequent analysis, the mystery of the Princes in the Tower will persist as an unresolved enigma.
On a final note, I wish to extend my gratitude for the support I have received throughout this review process. Completing all components was a formidable challenge, and I sincerely appreciate your encouragement over the past several weeks since I embarked on "Secrets of the Unknown." This will serve as my final post for 2024, as I plan to return in the new year with a refreshed perspective.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I look forward to reconnecting in 2025.
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]
James, Susan, 'Women's Voices in Tudor Wills 1483 - 1603: Authority, Influence and Material Culture' [Routledge, 2015], 'Personal and Domestic Memoribla' [P88]
Jones, Dan, 'How Tall Were England's Medieval Kings?' [History, Etc., September, 13th 2023]
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
Richardson, Douglas, 'Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families,' [Library of Congress], 2011 [2nd Edition] [P464]
Scarisbrick, Diana, 'Jewellery in Britain, 1066 - 1837: A Documentary, Social, Literary and Artistic Survey [Norwich: Michael Russell], 1994 [P28]
Thornton, Tim, 'Sir William Capell and A Royal Chain: The Afterlives (and Death) of King Edward V' [History: The Journal of the Historical Association], 2024 [P445–480]
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
Thornton, Tim, 'Henry VII and the Tower of London: the Context of the "Confession" of Sir James Tyrell in 1502 [Historical Research], 20 November 2023 [ Volume 97, Issue 276] [P218–225]
Website References:
Video References:
Lion Television [2024] 'The Princes In The Tower: A Daming Discovery', 3 December 2024. Available at: https://www.channel5.com/show/princes-in-the-tower-a-damning-discovery
History Calling (YouTube) [2024], 'HISTORIAN REACTS TO NEW PRINCES IN THE TOWER EVIDENCE', 6 December 2024. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqbfd1YicCw
Commenti