top of page
darrenscivilwarpag8

Re-opening English History’s Most Famous Cold Case. by Mark Wheatcroft

On Sunday evening last, the 19th November, a new documentary was aired on Channel 4. The documentary followed Philippa Langley, the historian responsible for the most remarkable discovery this century; the grave of a fallen King of England, Richard III, and Barrister and celebrity judge Robert Rinder KC. Langley approached Rinder to pass his legal eye over evidence that has been uncovered by her research teams across Europe over the last seven years that she believes sheds new light on England’s most famous cold case, what happened to the Richard III’s nephews, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, more commonly known as the Princes in the Tower.


"The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower", 1483 by Sir John Everett Millais


Before I examine the new evidence put forward by Langley’s team it is worth reviewing what the traditional view is towards what happened to the Princes. England in the 1483 was a volatile place. The strong and popular king Edward IV has died, his heir was his twelve-year-old son Edward.


Edward V of England


Too young to rule England the boy and the Kingdom has been left to the late king’s younger brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The late King Edward’s reign had solidified the kingdom following the turbulent years of what we today call the War of the Roses. However, with his death, the kingdom needed strong leadership and Richard made his move for power.


King Richard III of England.


In what is often seen as a coup d’état Richard moved against the Woodville faction of the House of York, those loyal to dowager Queen. In his role as Lord Protector, Richard had his two nephews moved to the Tower of London for their own protection, but his next act would set the stage for one of histories most enduring mysteries. Richard produced a document that perceived to show that his elder brother, Edward had been engaged to a French Princess before marrying Elizabeth Woodville, the boys’ mother in secret, in the strict world of medieval religion this invalidated the King’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville thus making the boys illegitimate. Soon after Richard, Duke of Gloucester would be crowned Richard III, not long after the Princes would disappear and the finger of suspicion would point towards their uncle. The view often taken is that the King had ordered a servant to have the boys killed and their bodies disposed of, when workmen during the reign of James II found the skeletons of two young boys in a bricked-up stairwell it seemed the mystery had been solved. A review of the bones in the 1930s confirmed they were the Princes and the bodies were laid to rest in Westminster Abbey and are even named as Edward and Richard. However, neither body have been subjected to modern examination as the late Queen refused permission for the bones to be tested. What though was said at the time of the boys disappearance, this is where the mystery begins to develop. Very few documents remain in England from the time, in 1485 Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth and a new king would come to the throne, Henry Tudor, known to history as Henry VII.


Henry VII of England


In a move to solidify his rule he married Elizabeth of York, the Princes sister. In this one act Henry legitimized the York-Woodville children, so for Henry as well as Richard the boys whereabouts was essential. Across England Henry’s agents went after the documents of Richard destroying large numbers and so the story of what happened really only comes through a few documents. The first was written by an Italian merchant, Dominic Mancini, who claimed to have been in London in 1483, the other was Thomas Moore, who wrote nearly fifty years later and was in a senior position in Henry VIII’s court, not exactly an impartial witness.

So, what then of the new evidence, the first document was uncovered in the Lile archive and on the face of it would not be a significant development, for it is a receipt. However, looking at the receipt it uncovers a tantalising clue. The receipt was for arms purchased from King Maximilian of the Holy Roman Empire to Margaret, the Dowager Countess of Bergundy. For the Countess was no other than the sister of the Yorkist brothers, Edward IV and Richard III, and the Princes aunt, which then leads to another clue for in the receipt it stated that the arms where for her nephew, who was banished from his kingdom. Could this point to at least one of the boys being spirited away to his aunt. The date of the document also aligns with an event that occurred in Dublin, Ireland, in 1487, the great and the good of Yorkist society arrived in the Irish city to pay homage to the new Yorkist claimant, a ten-year-old boy named Lambert Simnel.


The question that has vexed historians since then is why did high fliers like the De La Poles, cousins of the Yorkist kings throw their lot in with a ten-year-old boy when they would surely have had the clout to led the Yorkist faction themselves. This was the first of the major theory put forward, was this event actually the coronation of Edward and the swear of allegiance by the Yorkist society. After the Dublin event an army arrived in England to push Simnel’s claim but it was roundly defeated at the Battle of Stock Field, 16th June 1487, the army was a mismatch and that led to its undoing and a large number of fatalities on the Yorkist side, among them maybe Edward V.


This led on to the next document to be examined and perhaps the most contentious to the Rider and other historians, found in the Gilders Archive in Arnhem. The document proclaims to be the life story of the younger prince, Richard Duke of York, from the moment he was ferreted out of the Tower, through numerous European countries until he arrived at the court of his aunt. This document seemed almost too good to be true and it had Rinder worried that it was a forgery so he had it sent to two independent experts who both agreed that the document was true to type of a document produced in the late 15th and early 16th century. They also agreed that the hand writing style also fitted for the period. So, although they could not say for certain it was written by the younger prince what they could confirm was that it was not a later forgery.


Another document dating from the same period was also found in the archive in Dresden, this document is even more of a smoking gun. Not only does it offer the GDP of a small medieval town in return for support of an invasion of England but it was signed and sealed, the seal was the royal seal of England and it was signed Richard of England. Lastly the pair stopped at a castle in Belgium where the Dowager Countess spent her retirement. Amongst the ruins is a small arch which was known to entrance to Richard’s room, local legend said that this room was named after the countess nephew who lived there with her.

If then we view the Lambert Simnel was in fact Edward, would Margaret back another claimant to the crown unless she was absolutely certain, the answer would almost certainly be no, which then points towards that the next pretender to try to wrest the crown from Henry VII must at least in this part of Europe be seen as the countess nephew. What happens next may shed even more light on the individual, that would enter history as Parkin Walbeck, true identity. Crossing from the northern Europe Walbeck is blown off course and arrives at the court of the King of Scotland, who not only recognises him as King of England but also marries him to one of his daughters in a traditional medieval dynastic powerplay. Eventually Walbeck falls into the hands of Henry VII but against the norms of the day, instead of being quickly executed Henry instead placed him under house arrest. Eventually Walbeck became a problem for Henry, and he had him charged with treason but rather than the traditional traitor’s death of being Hung, Drawn and Quartered Walbeck was instead just hung. Why then would a pretender be treated in such a lenient way, could it be that Henry’s wife Elizabeth know that Walbeck was in fact her brother Richard and had persuaded the King to be merciful.

The programme concluded with Rinder stating that he believed that the evidence to Langley’s team had found in the European archives is sufficient to suggest that the princes did survive the tower and ended up in the care of their aunt.


However, this is still not conclusive to the princes’ survival and a number of pro-Tudor historians were on the programme dismissing the documents. There is only one way to put the saga to bed once and for all and that is to test the bones in Westminster Abbey. My own personal view is that at the very least this documentary has reopened the debate on the Princes in the Tower which for so long has been a closed shop that Richard has always been guilty.

The Princes in the Tower is available on catchup on All4 in the UK and PBS in the US.



Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page