Mystery Files (2010–…): Season 1, Episode 4 - Princes in the Tower - full transcript
Join medieval historians as they separate fact from Tudor propaganda in an attempt to solve of 500-year-old murder mystery.
In 1483,
the heirto the throne of England,
12-year-old Edward and
hisyounger brother Richard,
vanish inside the
Tower of London.
It's commonly
assumed they've been
murdered, an event that changesthe
course of British monarchy.
Their uncle Richard
the third has always
been singled out for
the crime, killing
the boys to usurp the throne.
But a modern investigationinto the case
now throws this longheld
judgment into doubt.
Exposing the motives oftwo
other leading suspects
in an attempt to reveal who
themost likely villain really is,
we open "The MysteryFiles"
on the royal murder.
The disappearance of the
two sons of Edward IV,
successors to his throne,
is themost infamous unsolved mystery
in British royal history.
Since his death three
yearslater, King Richard III
has been accused
of their murders
and vilified by themonarchs
who succeeded in.
Even William Shakespeare
immortalizes Richard
as a deformed usurperseizing
the crown of England
amidst an ocean of blood,
including that of his nephews.
But modern historianscontest
that this portrayal
is riddled with inaccuracies.
Richard's life is, in
fact, well-documented.
The loyal brother of EdwardlV,
the young princes father
is entrusted with
theirguardianship when Edward dies.
At the time, Richard
is widely considered
to be the best man
to run the country
until the boys come of age.
He is not a crippled
hunchback, nor is he
the only man who could havethe
boy's blood on his hands.
Finally, allowing
Richard III the hearing
he never had, can
he now be exonerated
after 500 years of propaganda.
In 1483, Richard puts theboys
in the Tower of London.
Historian, Professor
AJ Pollard thinks
the Prince's imprisonment
doesnot prove Richard's guilt.
Moving to the tower
was not necessarily
sinister, because it
was where the coronationprocession
started out from.
It was a big royalpalace,
a royal residence.
It's only later, and maybe
largely because of what
happened to the two boys,
thatwe now associate with a prison
where people are
executed or murdered.
There's no
disputingRichard wanted the crown,
and his method of taking
it is questionable.
Sometime in June 1483,
it'sannounced that the boys are
illegitimate on the groundstheir
father, the dead king,
was betrothed to another
womanbefore marrying their mother.
Under Catholic law of
the day, the princes
are, therefore, bastards,
andRichard the rightful heir.
Parliament upholds the
claim, and in an act
known as the Titulus
Regius, they legally
award the crown to Richard.
His critics accuse him
ofengineering the proclamation.
Historians argue that
does not necessarily
make him a murderer.
Doctor Michael Jones is
an expert on the mystery
of the princes in the tower.
OnceRichard
has taken the throne,
in a strictly legal sense
the princes in the tower
are no longer a threat tohim,
because as bastards they
have become irrelevant
to the succession.
Claims thatRichard
murdered the princes
are based on rumors,
that while visiting
his northern estates lessthan
a month into his reign
the boys simply vanish.
But published accounts
accusing Richard
don't start to appear untilabout
50 years after his death.
So Thomas Moore, a
statesman and lawyer,
formulates the
charge in his book
the history of Richard III.
Lynda Pidgeon is an experton
British royal history.
She has studied Moore's
chronicle in depth.
Thomas Moore is creating
an elaborate story that
Richardwanted the princes killed.
Someone says,
well I knowthe person that will help.
The prospective assassin
is one Sir James Tyrell,
Richard's loyal servant.
According to Thomas
Moore, Tyrell
and two of his henchmen
murderEdward's sons while they sleep.
This is the plot
Shakespeare later echos.
They then remove the
bodies, and they're then
buried beneath the staircase.
More story condemns Richard.
At Eaton College Library,
Dr. Julian Luxford
has discovered a
document which also
appears to associate
Richardwith the princes death.
The
poemsays that Richard III wasted
the stores of wealth
thathis predecessor Edward
the fourth had built
up, and that he
suppressed the,
,the offspring of Edward IV.
The verses date to about 1485
just after Richard'sdeath,
but experts debate
the interpretation of
the word "opprimere,"
which translates as suppress.
Thisword suppress, the ambiguity
surrounding that is simplythe
same ambiguity that exists
in modern English,
and that is that it
can mean anything fromrather
mild form of treatment
to murder.
And even thoughthe
poem defames Richard,
it falls short of
accusing him of murder.
Another clue in the
defense of Richard III
and the royal murderers
comesfrom a chance discovery made
inside the Tower of London.
During renovations
in 1674, workman
find two small skeletons.
Just like in a storyrecorded
by Thomas Moore,
they're buried
beneath a staircase.
Today, a plaque marks thelocation
where the remains were
found, but historians
have questioned
whether the bones are reallythose
of the two royal princes.
For a start,
Linda Pidgeonthinks Moore's location
is fundamentally flawed.
Digging up a stone staircase
would take a number
ofworkmen a number of weeks.
It's not something you
would do overnight.
And at the foot,
you're talkingabout going into foundations
as well.
Crucially, there is also
no conclusive proof of whomthe
bones actually belong to.
We are unclear of the sex
of the children.
We cannot date the ages
asprecisely as was claimed,
and really it's still
open whether they are,
in fact, the princes or no.
If the bonesare
the two young princes,
it supports Moore'sallegations
and implicates
Richard in their deaths.
But the current royal
family refuses to allow
any tests to be carried out.
Ongoing work aims to
identify the skeletons,
but until links are establishedbetween
the bodies and Richard
III, there is little
more than speculation
connecting him to
the princes deaths.
Despite centuries
of recrimination,
the case against Richard
is surprisingly weak.
Further investigation
reveals there
are other possible culprits.
The first man worthy
of closer scrutiny
is the Duke of Buckingham,
an intimate friend
of Richard's and part of
the kings inner circle.
Suspicion of
Buckingham's guilt comes
from a more contemporary
source than the writings
of Shakespeare or Thomas Moore.
Peter O'Donoghue is thecustodian
of some of England's
most precious manuscripts.
What I've
gothere is an annals written by we
think a London merchant,
aLondon citizen, year-by-year,
an entry made each year.
Under 1482 to 3, which it saysthis
year King Edward IV's sons
were put to death in
the Tower of London
by the vice of the
Duke of Buckingham.
This document
isone of the few surviving
accounts of what
apparently happens
the year the princes disappear.
It clearly blames Buckingham.
This is the earliest
account we have of what
London citizens are saying.
When Richard
succeeds the throne,
Buckingham grabs his coat
tailsand becomes the second most
powerful man in the country.
He is one of the very few
peoplewith access to the princes.
Bert Fields is a lawyer
andhistorian who has investigated
all the suspects in the case.
Duke of Buckingham, who
was the first peer of
the land was a unstable
mean kind of guy, very selfish.
I believe that he resentedRichard
and resented Richard
being the King,
becauseBuckingham had a good claim
to the throne himself.
Buckingham
isdescended from Edward III.
He has a claim to the throne
although not as directly
as Richard.
Thereis something very erratic
about his behavior,
and he couldjust be an unstable character.
He could, however,
have a game plan,
and that might even involvewanting
to claim this throne
himself.
As Richard's right hand man,
Buckingham is
always at his side.
But when Richard first
visits Oxford soon
after his coronation,
Buckingham is not listed
as a member of the royal party.
If Buckingham had stayed
inLondon, getting to the princes
would be easy.
With the boys out of
the way, Buckingham
is a huge step
closer to the throne,
especially if he now
implicates Richard.
The theory of Buckingham's guilt
would be he kills the princes,
blames it on Richard to destroy
Richard for being a murderer.
I think that's a very
realisticpossibility given Buckingham's
neurotic, unstable character.
If Buckingham
did kill the princes,
Richard is almost certainto
have confronted him.
The two men hold a meeting.
What is said is a mystery,
but soon afterwards
Buckingham makes his move.
He betrays the King.
I suspect that he was planning
to take the throne himself.
For Buckingham
to depose Richard,
he needs support.
He turns to the
man experts believe
is the other possible
suspect in the murder
of the princes in the
tower, Henry Tudor,
later to become King Henry VII.
Henry had a very,
very thin claim to the throne,
really was no claim
at all that I can see.
Henry descendsfrom
a female line that had
been barred from succession.
So he has thisvery, very claim,
but he's got a lot of power.
Henry belongs to one of the most
influential families in Englandand
can raise an army quickly.
His own desire for the
crown is the reason he
backs Buckingham's rebellion.
The uprising fails.
Richard orders
Buckingham executed.
Henry escapes to
fight another day.
And two years later, he
challenges and defeats
Richard in an epic encounter.
The battle of Bosworth field
iswon by politics, not bravery.
Once again, Richard
is double-crossed.
His ally, the Earl
of Northumberland
turns traitor pulling
his men away and leaving
Richard outnumbered.
Henry claims the
opposition to Richard
is because he murdered
the young princes.
The people's reaction
when the King falls
suggests many of his subjectsdon't
believe Henry's story.
Richard was beloved particularly
in the northern part of England.
Northumberland hadbetrayed
him in the battle,
and when Northumberland
went back to his estates
in the north, he was murderedby
the people who really felt
that this was
something they could
live with, the fact thathe
had betrayed their hero.
With Richarddead,
Henry grabs the throne
and becomes King Henry VII,
first of the Judah monarchs.
He had already boasted
his royal pedigree
by promising to marry
the Prince's sister,
but Ironically by making
herhis queen Henry re-affirms
the boys right to the crown
byrevoking their illegitimacy.
If they're illegitimate,
his wife is illegitimate,
andif his wife is illegitimate,
he really isn't really the King.
So what recourse does he
have if they're alive?
He has to kill them.
Now the victoriousKing
Henry has complete control
of the Tower of London.
His men would have no
problemeliminating two teenage boys.
Ruthless, Henry
imprisons and kills
people throughout
his reign, including
the princes 10-year-old cousinand
members of his own family.
And once he's ensured
thefuture of the Tudor dynasty,
he starts to rewrite itshistory
by destroying documents.
Now the first thing that happens
is that the Titulus
Regius is suppressed.
The Titulus Regiusis
the parliamentary act,
which details the two
youngprinces illegitimacy and so
established Richard's
right to the crown.
Politically, he
had to get rid of this
annoyingdocument, because it defamed,
it slandered his would be queen.
Destroying the Titulus Regius,
Henry not only clears
his wife's name,
but relegates
Richard to usurp her
and inadvertently
createsthe perfect scapegoat
for the Prince's murder.
It createsan
effect, which is magnified
over time that Richard
Ilihad no grounds whatsoever
for claiming the throne
ofEngland, and that, of course,
of distortion that grows.
Future Tudor monarchs continue
the anti-Richard campaign,
andin the reign of Elizabeth I,
Henry's granddaughter,
Shakespeare slanders him
as a child murdering hunchback.
But historians now arguethe
portrayal of Richard III
as an evil monster is a
gross misrepresentation.
Richard is being
deformed in both characterand
also physical appearance.
And, of course,
one issupposed to mirror the other.
The fact that
theentire line of Tudor monarchs
maligns Richard is reasonenough
to question the long held
view that he is the murderer.
Despite Tudor claims, there
is no proof that Richard
had the boys killed.
From the evidence,
Henry and Buckingham
seem as open to suspicion.
Henry Tudor has the most to
loseif the princes remain alive.
Without the Titulus Regius,
they are no longer illegitimate,
so England belongs to them.
The Duke of Buckingham
is untrustworthy and has
his own designs on the crown.
With so little
concrete proof, no one
can be positively
identified, but there
is another possible
scenariowhich completely clears
Richard's name and positions
himnot as the Prince's murderer,
but as their protector.
A very good casecan
be made for Richard having
sent the princes
probably separately
to different
countries in Europe.
The easiest way for Richard
to keep the boys
safe without giving
up the throne is to get them
outof the country and into hiding.
He probably
came up with some story
to keep them from
saying who they were,
because if they said
who they were they
would likely be killed.
And Richard may also have
deliberately split them apartas
a way to keep them silent.
So possibly they were
told each, well,
your brother'sbeen murdered so be quite.
After
Richard'sdeath two uprisings
occur led by people claiming
tobe the princes back from exile.
The first is known as
theLambert Simnel Rebellion.
Rumors surface that the
princes have returned.
By the time Henry
crushes the revolt,
there is no sign of
either of the boys.
But a second invasion
eight years later rocks
the Tudor monarchy to its core.
Around
1490,we have someone turning up
at the court of
Burgundy who now claims
to be the younger of theprinces
in the tower, Richard
Duke of York.
Henry denounces thisman
as a commoner called Perkin
Warbeck, not Prince Richard.
Many don't believe in.
Thispretender
if he is a pretender,
and this series of plots
anduprisings is the real deal.
Perkin Warbeck, whoever he is,
attracts a stellar cast
ofsupporters, Richard III's
Sister Margaret, Charles Vlilof
France, the King of Scotland,
and the Holy Roman
Emperorall rally around him.
And then there
is the at home support,
most worrying for Henry
the VII, his own Chamberlain,
Sir William Stanley.
Stanley is overheard remarking
that if Warbeck
is Prince Richard,
he would Ally with him.
Those words enough to get Sir
William Stanley on the block.
That's dangerously
close to home.
Warbeck causecreates
huge problems for him,
but in 1497 as he's mountingan
invasion into Cornwall
on England's south
coast, he's captured
and taken to the tower.
Eventually, he confesses thathe
isn't one of the princes.
There are somany
holes in the confession
that it's almost
like he was sending
a message I am not
reallyPerkin Warbeck the name
that they gave him.
And I think he's saying,
I'm the younger prince.
What is certainis
that Henry tortures
and executes his prisoner.
And with his death,
the invasions stop.
I think
wehave to take seriously the fact
that Perkin Warbeck may indeedbe
who he said he was, that is
the younger of the two
princes in the tower,
Richard Duke of York,
rightfulclaimant to the throne,
and therefore, King
Richard IV of England.
Many people have
beenaccused of the royal murder
of the princes.
The much maligned Richard
Ilihas been proclaimed guilty
without trial,
but HenryTudor and the treacherous Duke
of Buckingham are just
aslikely to be responsible.
Unless new evidence
comes to light,
there is no way of
knowingwho murdered the boys.
But if, as some expertsbelieve,
the prince has escaped
and Perkin Warbeck,
the young Richard,
returns to claim his
crown, it is Henry
Tudor who kills him after all.
the heirto the throne of England,
12-year-old Edward and
hisyounger brother Richard,
vanish inside the
Tower of London.
It's commonly
assumed they've been
murdered, an event that changesthe
course of British monarchy.
Their uncle Richard
the third has always
been singled out for
the crime, killing
the boys to usurp the throne.
But a modern investigationinto the case
now throws this longheld
judgment into doubt.
Exposing the motives oftwo
other leading suspects
in an attempt to reveal who
themost likely villain really is,
we open "The MysteryFiles"
on the royal murder.
The disappearance of the
two sons of Edward IV,
successors to his throne,
is themost infamous unsolved mystery
in British royal history.
Since his death three
yearslater, King Richard III
has been accused
of their murders
and vilified by themonarchs
who succeeded in.
Even William Shakespeare
immortalizes Richard
as a deformed usurperseizing
the crown of England
amidst an ocean of blood,
including that of his nephews.
But modern historianscontest
that this portrayal
is riddled with inaccuracies.
Richard's life is, in
fact, well-documented.
The loyal brother of EdwardlV,
the young princes father
is entrusted with
theirguardianship when Edward dies.
At the time, Richard
is widely considered
to be the best man
to run the country
until the boys come of age.
He is not a crippled
hunchback, nor is he
the only man who could havethe
boy's blood on his hands.
Finally, allowing
Richard III the hearing
he never had, can
he now be exonerated
after 500 years of propaganda.
In 1483, Richard puts theboys
in the Tower of London.
Historian, Professor
AJ Pollard thinks
the Prince's imprisonment
doesnot prove Richard's guilt.
Moving to the tower
was not necessarily
sinister, because it
was where the coronationprocession
started out from.
It was a big royalpalace,
a royal residence.
It's only later, and maybe
largely because of what
happened to the two boys,
thatwe now associate with a prison
where people are
executed or murdered.
There's no
disputingRichard wanted the crown,
and his method of taking
it is questionable.
Sometime in June 1483,
it'sannounced that the boys are
illegitimate on the groundstheir
father, the dead king,
was betrothed to another
womanbefore marrying their mother.
Under Catholic law of
the day, the princes
are, therefore, bastards,
andRichard the rightful heir.
Parliament upholds the
claim, and in an act
known as the Titulus
Regius, they legally
award the crown to Richard.
His critics accuse him
ofengineering the proclamation.
Historians argue that
does not necessarily
make him a murderer.
Doctor Michael Jones is
an expert on the mystery
of the princes in the tower.
OnceRichard
has taken the throne,
in a strictly legal sense
the princes in the tower
are no longer a threat tohim,
because as bastards they
have become irrelevant
to the succession.
Claims thatRichard
murdered the princes
are based on rumors,
that while visiting
his northern estates lessthan
a month into his reign
the boys simply vanish.
But published accounts
accusing Richard
don't start to appear untilabout
50 years after his death.
So Thomas Moore, a
statesman and lawyer,
formulates the
charge in his book
the history of Richard III.
Lynda Pidgeon is an experton
British royal history.
She has studied Moore's
chronicle in depth.
Thomas Moore is creating
an elaborate story that
Richardwanted the princes killed.
Someone says,
well I knowthe person that will help.
The prospective assassin
is one Sir James Tyrell,
Richard's loyal servant.
According to Thomas
Moore, Tyrell
and two of his henchmen
murderEdward's sons while they sleep.
This is the plot
Shakespeare later echos.
They then remove the
bodies, and they're then
buried beneath the staircase.
More story condemns Richard.
At Eaton College Library,
Dr. Julian Luxford
has discovered a
document which also
appears to associate
Richardwith the princes death.
The
poemsays that Richard III wasted
the stores of wealth
thathis predecessor Edward
the fourth had built
up, and that he
suppressed the,
,the offspring of Edward IV.
The verses date to about 1485
just after Richard'sdeath,
but experts debate
the interpretation of
the word "opprimere,"
which translates as suppress.
Thisword suppress, the ambiguity
surrounding that is simplythe
same ambiguity that exists
in modern English,
and that is that it
can mean anything fromrather
mild form of treatment
to murder.
And even thoughthe
poem defames Richard,
it falls short of
accusing him of murder.
Another clue in the
defense of Richard III
and the royal murderers
comesfrom a chance discovery made
inside the Tower of London.
During renovations
in 1674, workman
find two small skeletons.
Just like in a storyrecorded
by Thomas Moore,
they're buried
beneath a staircase.
Today, a plaque marks thelocation
where the remains were
found, but historians
have questioned
whether the bones are reallythose
of the two royal princes.
For a start,
Linda Pidgeonthinks Moore's location
is fundamentally flawed.
Digging up a stone staircase
would take a number
ofworkmen a number of weeks.
It's not something you
would do overnight.
And at the foot,
you're talkingabout going into foundations
as well.
Crucially, there is also
no conclusive proof of whomthe
bones actually belong to.
We are unclear of the sex
of the children.
We cannot date the ages
asprecisely as was claimed,
and really it's still
open whether they are,
in fact, the princes or no.
If the bonesare
the two young princes,
it supports Moore'sallegations
and implicates
Richard in their deaths.
But the current royal
family refuses to allow
any tests to be carried out.
Ongoing work aims to
identify the skeletons,
but until links are establishedbetween
the bodies and Richard
III, there is little
more than speculation
connecting him to
the princes deaths.
Despite centuries
of recrimination,
the case against Richard
is surprisingly weak.
Further investigation
reveals there
are other possible culprits.
The first man worthy
of closer scrutiny
is the Duke of Buckingham,
an intimate friend
of Richard's and part of
the kings inner circle.
Suspicion of
Buckingham's guilt comes
from a more contemporary
source than the writings
of Shakespeare or Thomas Moore.
Peter O'Donoghue is thecustodian
of some of England's
most precious manuscripts.
What I've
gothere is an annals written by we
think a London merchant,
aLondon citizen, year-by-year,
an entry made each year.
Under 1482 to 3, which it saysthis
year King Edward IV's sons
were put to death in
the Tower of London
by the vice of the
Duke of Buckingham.
This document
isone of the few surviving
accounts of what
apparently happens
the year the princes disappear.
It clearly blames Buckingham.
This is the earliest
account we have of what
London citizens are saying.
When Richard
succeeds the throne,
Buckingham grabs his coat
tailsand becomes the second most
powerful man in the country.
He is one of the very few
peoplewith access to the princes.
Bert Fields is a lawyer
andhistorian who has investigated
all the suspects in the case.
Duke of Buckingham, who
was the first peer of
the land was a unstable
mean kind of guy, very selfish.
I believe that he resentedRichard
and resented Richard
being the King,
becauseBuckingham had a good claim
to the throne himself.
Buckingham
isdescended from Edward III.
He has a claim to the throne
although not as directly
as Richard.
Thereis something very erratic
about his behavior,
and he couldjust be an unstable character.
He could, however,
have a game plan,
and that might even involvewanting
to claim this throne
himself.
As Richard's right hand man,
Buckingham is
always at his side.
But when Richard first
visits Oxford soon
after his coronation,
Buckingham is not listed
as a member of the royal party.
If Buckingham had stayed
inLondon, getting to the princes
would be easy.
With the boys out of
the way, Buckingham
is a huge step
closer to the throne,
especially if he now
implicates Richard.
The theory of Buckingham's guilt
would be he kills the princes,
blames it on Richard to destroy
Richard for being a murderer.
I think that's a very
realisticpossibility given Buckingham's
neurotic, unstable character.
If Buckingham
did kill the princes,
Richard is almost certainto
have confronted him.
The two men hold a meeting.
What is said is a mystery,
but soon afterwards
Buckingham makes his move.
He betrays the King.
I suspect that he was planning
to take the throne himself.
For Buckingham
to depose Richard,
he needs support.
He turns to the
man experts believe
is the other possible
suspect in the murder
of the princes in the
tower, Henry Tudor,
later to become King Henry VII.
Henry had a very,
very thin claim to the throne,
really was no claim
at all that I can see.
Henry descendsfrom
a female line that had
been barred from succession.
So he has thisvery, very claim,
but he's got a lot of power.
Henry belongs to one of the most
influential families in Englandand
can raise an army quickly.
His own desire for the
crown is the reason he
backs Buckingham's rebellion.
The uprising fails.
Richard orders
Buckingham executed.
Henry escapes to
fight another day.
And two years later, he
challenges and defeats
Richard in an epic encounter.
The battle of Bosworth field
iswon by politics, not bravery.
Once again, Richard
is double-crossed.
His ally, the Earl
of Northumberland
turns traitor pulling
his men away and leaving
Richard outnumbered.
Henry claims the
opposition to Richard
is because he murdered
the young princes.
The people's reaction
when the King falls
suggests many of his subjectsdon't
believe Henry's story.
Richard was beloved particularly
in the northern part of England.
Northumberland hadbetrayed
him in the battle,
and when Northumberland
went back to his estates
in the north, he was murderedby
the people who really felt
that this was
something they could
live with, the fact thathe
had betrayed their hero.
With Richarddead,
Henry grabs the throne
and becomes King Henry VII,
first of the Judah monarchs.
He had already boasted
his royal pedigree
by promising to marry
the Prince's sister,
but Ironically by making
herhis queen Henry re-affirms
the boys right to the crown
byrevoking their illegitimacy.
If they're illegitimate,
his wife is illegitimate,
andif his wife is illegitimate,
he really isn't really the King.
So what recourse does he
have if they're alive?
He has to kill them.
Now the victoriousKing
Henry has complete control
of the Tower of London.
His men would have no
problemeliminating two teenage boys.
Ruthless, Henry
imprisons and kills
people throughout
his reign, including
the princes 10-year-old cousinand
members of his own family.
And once he's ensured
thefuture of the Tudor dynasty,
he starts to rewrite itshistory
by destroying documents.
Now the first thing that happens
is that the Titulus
Regius is suppressed.
The Titulus Regiusis
the parliamentary act,
which details the two
youngprinces illegitimacy and so
established Richard's
right to the crown.
Politically, he
had to get rid of this
annoyingdocument, because it defamed,
it slandered his would be queen.
Destroying the Titulus Regius,
Henry not only clears
his wife's name,
but relegates
Richard to usurp her
and inadvertently
createsthe perfect scapegoat
for the Prince's murder.
It createsan
effect, which is magnified
over time that Richard
Ilihad no grounds whatsoever
for claiming the throne
ofEngland, and that, of course,
of distortion that grows.
Future Tudor monarchs continue
the anti-Richard campaign,
andin the reign of Elizabeth I,
Henry's granddaughter,
Shakespeare slanders him
as a child murdering hunchback.
But historians now arguethe
portrayal of Richard III
as an evil monster is a
gross misrepresentation.
Richard is being
deformed in both characterand
also physical appearance.
And, of course,
one issupposed to mirror the other.
The fact that
theentire line of Tudor monarchs
maligns Richard is reasonenough
to question the long held
view that he is the murderer.
Despite Tudor claims, there
is no proof that Richard
had the boys killed.
From the evidence,
Henry and Buckingham
seem as open to suspicion.
Henry Tudor has the most to
loseif the princes remain alive.
Without the Titulus Regius,
they are no longer illegitimate,
so England belongs to them.
The Duke of Buckingham
is untrustworthy and has
his own designs on the crown.
With so little
concrete proof, no one
can be positively
identified, but there
is another possible
scenariowhich completely clears
Richard's name and positions
himnot as the Prince's murderer,
but as their protector.
A very good casecan
be made for Richard having
sent the princes
probably separately
to different
countries in Europe.
The easiest way for Richard
to keep the boys
safe without giving
up the throne is to get them
outof the country and into hiding.
He probably
came up with some story
to keep them from
saying who they were,
because if they said
who they were they
would likely be killed.
And Richard may also have
deliberately split them apartas
a way to keep them silent.
So possibly they were
told each, well,
your brother'sbeen murdered so be quite.
After
Richard'sdeath two uprisings
occur led by people claiming
tobe the princes back from exile.
The first is known as
theLambert Simnel Rebellion.
Rumors surface that the
princes have returned.
By the time Henry
crushes the revolt,
there is no sign of
either of the boys.
But a second invasion
eight years later rocks
the Tudor monarchy to its core.
Around
1490,we have someone turning up
at the court of
Burgundy who now claims
to be the younger of theprinces
in the tower, Richard
Duke of York.
Henry denounces thisman
as a commoner called Perkin
Warbeck, not Prince Richard.
Many don't believe in.
Thispretender
if he is a pretender,
and this series of plots
anduprisings is the real deal.
Perkin Warbeck, whoever he is,
attracts a stellar cast
ofsupporters, Richard III's
Sister Margaret, Charles Vlilof
France, the King of Scotland,
and the Holy Roman
Emperorall rally around him.
And then there
is the at home support,
most worrying for Henry
the VII, his own Chamberlain,
Sir William Stanley.
Stanley is overheard remarking
that if Warbeck
is Prince Richard,
he would Ally with him.
Those words enough to get Sir
William Stanley on the block.
That's dangerously
close to home.
Warbeck causecreates
huge problems for him,
but in 1497 as he's mountingan
invasion into Cornwall
on England's south
coast, he's captured
and taken to the tower.
Eventually, he confesses thathe
isn't one of the princes.
There are somany
holes in the confession
that it's almost
like he was sending
a message I am not
reallyPerkin Warbeck the name
that they gave him.
And I think he's saying,
I'm the younger prince.
What is certainis
that Henry tortures
and executes his prisoner.
And with his death,
the invasions stop.
I think
wehave to take seriously the fact
that Perkin Warbeck may indeedbe
who he said he was, that is
the younger of the two
princes in the tower,
Richard Duke of York,
rightfulclaimant to the throne,
and therefore, King
Richard IV of England.
Many people have
beenaccused of the royal murder
of the princes.
The much maligned Richard
Ilihas been proclaimed guilty
without trial,
but HenryTudor and the treacherous Duke
of Buckingham are just
aslikely to be responsible.
Unless new evidence
comes to light,
there is no way of
knowingwho murdered the boys.
But if, as some expertsbelieve,
the prince has escaped
and Perkin Warbeck,
the young Richard,
returns to claim his
crown, it is Henry
Tudor who kills him after all.