Talk:Princes in the Tower/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expansion

As mentioned on the talkpage of Edward V of England, there is currently a bit of work going on to expand the articles and improve referencing.

Obviously there is a lot of material to go through and that means the expansions and referencing is quite piecemeal - basically as it's found, it's put in.
So please stick with wikipedia's pillar of "assume good faith" and please do not interpret edits as trying to add undue weight to a single theory or section- its not what happening. The whole article should theoretically be expanded and better referenced, it's just whatever sources are read first are being put in first.

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not tell other editors how they are allowed to react to your edits. Editors have every right to take a view about undue weight. You do not "know" that "its (sic) not what (sic) happening". What is happening is what we see happening, not what exists in your mind. Your view is not that of the "owner" of the article, and to make such assertions is to deny other editors their equal right to edit. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I'm hoping to change the layout of the article which should improve its readability and fix the repetitiveness and dodgy neutrality issues.
Basically the order I'm going for is a logical chronology -Background and the disappearance - then the evidence, the bodies that were found and the contemporary rumours in England and France etc. - then the historical theories: murder suspects, escape claims etc.
That way its a bit more logical, with the background, facts and evidence presented first before huge array of historian's theories. As it is, the evidence is after the theories. Moving it would also remove the need for the repetitive bits, like the constant "there's no evidence", as it would already have been made clear what evidence there was and wasn't.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the "dodgy" neutrality is a matter of opinion, not of your assertion, and it is something that is properly worked out by discussion of the sources, discussion from which you have chosen to withdraw, only to emerge to assert that you alone, by ex cathedra assertion may determine the nature of the "huge array of historian's (sic) theories". Paul B (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dunno about the overall shape of the article, but it certainly isn't being improved by the constant introduction of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. I've just removed this ridiculous sentence for the third time: "Markham argues that this provided motivation to execute the princes; having been declared legitimate, they held a greater claim to the throne than Henry."Deb (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well how would you improve it? Markham argued that by removing the Titulus Regius to legitimse his wife, he had also legitimsed her brothers. Thus (as Markham believed them still to be alive) as legitimate heirs, they had a greater claim to the throne and that was Henry's motivation.

With regard to Markham's 1486 date. It's not disputing the existence of rumours; those are already proved in a few different places not (just Mancini) in the rumour section. Markham is refereeing to 1486 as the date when establishment began to "officially" blame Richard; not the date when rumours began in the wider population. Sorry I must not have been perfectly clear that he was not referring to rumours - I'll take another look.

And finally, can I just point out for perpetuity: I am not a Richardian. I hate Richard III. I believe he was evil. I fervidly believe he murdered the boys. And I am a passionate critic of the Richard III society (as can be seen on a few other talkpages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs)

It's the poor grammar I was commenting on. It obscures your meaning.Deb (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Clements Markham, of course, is not and was not a historian. He was an explorer. His book was published over a century ago. It is not a reliable source at all by Wikipedia's normal standards. If we were to ruthlessly apply WP:RS we should exclude it altogether. As it happens, I believe that these rules are there to serve a purpose, not to be adhered to as dogma. Sometimes we have to use unreliable sources in order to properly represent the range of views that have been presented over history. But we should only do so with the view that it is in the context of what the majority of reliable modern scholars think. We should not present Markham as a "historian" on equal terms with them. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well actually Sir Clements Markham isn't called a historian in the article. To be fair, he had a very varied career and can't really be labeled as one thing: Author, explorer, intellectual, geographer, honorary secretary of the royal geographical society. A sizable chunk of the many books he wrote were about history and archaeology. His book about Richard III is still in print over 100 years after publication -a very rare thing among non-fiction books. The ODNB calls him one of the first and the most important of Richard III's defenders; so he's certainly made his name within the genre. And to claim Oxford University Press', English Historical Review journal is not a reliable source.... less said the better.

If we want to pour scorn perhaps we should look at your addition attributed to, Arlene Okerlund: A retired Professor of English from San Jose State University (the 272nd best university in America), and her book was published by The History Press, who I believe you yourself called "a publisher of local history generally used by amateurs".

But to be honest, faceless people on the internet (as we all are) attempting to discredit academics, individuals and sources (despite the fact they are all inline with wikipedia's policies), does look a bit ridiculous.

Can I suggest dropping the incivility and attitude (discussing things with good humour as other editors do might be too much to ask). A positive outlook and friendly attitude and we all might live longer. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no incivility in my comments, though your remark about the "272 best university" must qualify as one of the most sanctimonious and snobbish comments I've heard in a long time. Why don't you "drop the attitude"? I don't recall saying anything about the "English Historical Review journal". The Okerlund book has nothing to do with me. It was added by an editor called Wydevillefan to the Elizabeth Woodville page five years ago [1] (where it is identified as published by Stroud:Tempus). My contribution was to add the views of scholars concerning the link to the Simnel rebellion. For all the verbiage, the fact remains that the Markham book could not conceivably pass WP:RS. Being in print is completely irrelevant to the policy. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And Deb I really appreciate you help on the grammar front. Thank you --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

BBC History article on The Princes in the Tower

Another debate stirring article in October edition. Source based or not, any views? Freedom1968 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The author's credentials might be a bit dodgy, but she seemed to be stating current mainstream views. Deb (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Link? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that one was Leanda de Lisle, but there's a new one this month - see my note at Talk:Richard III of England.Deb (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas More

Strange that Thomas More's account of the murder of the Princes and who dunnit doesn't even merit a mention here! Not even the usual sniffily inaccurate factoid which claims that he was a Tudor propagandist...Colin4C 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - especially since 1) He would have had opporunity to interview persons still living during the confinement, and 2) He actually mentioned that the boys were buried where the bones were found.MSgtUSAFret (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have put mentions of More's history in the article. Readers can draw their own conclusions about its accuracy, but, as noted, it was written within living memory of the murders and deserves to be mentioned. Vidor (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"2) He actually mentioned that the boys were buried where the bones were found." However, he also says that they were subsequently dug up and reburied elsewhere, so that doesn't really fly. 86.179.170.184 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And how could he know? If he got that from Tyrell's supposed confession, why weren't the bones not dug up in 1502. Instead they were by chance dug up almost two centuries later. So, the bones cannot confirm More's account. Deposuit (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

While More's account was written ca 1513, it was left unfinished by More and published only after his death (by his son-in-law, I believe), which was over 50 years after the Princes disappeared - very few contemporaries with actual first-hand knowledge of the Princes would still have been around to confirm or refute. If the bones referred to are the 1674 findings, there were not found where More said they were, nor was it ever proven that they were in fact the bones of the Princes; in fact, there is a good bit of evidence now against that possibility. 69.42.36.162 (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Characterising Sir Thomas More as a Tudor stooge is ridiculous. He preferred beheading over acquescing to that well-known Tudor Henry VIII's demands to swear an oath. He was also a sharp lawyer earlier in his career and perfectly capable of questioning witnesses and sorting fact from fiction. His conclusion (that Richard ordered the murders) is good enough for me.TheMathemagician (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

More was hardly a Tudor stooge. However, his history of R3 is packed full of hearsay (as well as some mistakes). And since he was a lawyer, I'm not surprised he didn't publish a book of hearsays. And he did spend a lot of time in Morton's household, who was not exactly a friend of R3, or any Yorkist for that matter, so his sources are suspect at best. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Revamp

OK, after a year away, working hard at other things, I've had a chance to go through some of my books on the subject and compare what was in them to what was in this article. To put it bluntly, it was a shambles. The material was patchily covered, and did not adequately summarise the arguments put forward. Suggestions by amateurs were given equal weight to those of professional scholars. In particular, the gross exaggeration of the claims of Philippa Gregory's extremely dodgy TV series (which claimed, unbelievably, that the Earl of Richmond was next in line to the throne after Richard himself, ignoring the dozen or so others who had a better claim) was achieved at the expense of omitting material from a cited source, which debunked it. I wondered at the time when I saw Pollard cited - but I had no time to check. I don't want to criticize somebody who is clearly having a difficult time personally at present, but I can only conclude the omission was deliberate, as the remaining quotation debunking Shore and Norfolk was accurate and the editor in question had shown him(?)self to be extremely wedded to the Beaufort theory despite what can only be described as its manifest ludicrousness (which Pollard goes into in some detail). Serious reference works were dismissed as unreliable. The scholarly consensus - and like it or not, it is a consensus - around the guilt of Richard was given equal weight as one among five theories. James Tyrell, who belongs in the Richard III section, had his own section, as though he was acting on his own initiative. Baldwin continues to be cited from the BBC website and the contents are not perfectly summarised. The impact of the princes' disappearance was not discussed at all.

I have done my best to rectify these problems with the materials at my disposal - unfortunately, I have no access to a copy of Charles Ross' biography at the moment or to Baldwin's book. To wit, I have: 1) Merged the sections on Richard and Tyrell 2) Removed the section on Beaufort and incorporated the suggestion under other thoeries where it belongs 3) Added additional citations from a range of sources, including Ricardian ones (Kendall, Carson) 4) Expanded on the survival theories, which are far-fetched but are quite popular among Ricardians and therefore in my judgement should be included. 4) Added a section on the political impact of their disappearance, which was considerable. This seems to me to provide (A) a more accurate and (B) a more balanced overview of the scholarly consensus and the available literature. If anyone wishes to tidy up my references (I am afraid I find Wikipedia's referencing system extremely tedious and user-unfriendly) and check my edits for grammar and spelling, I would be grateful. If there are any points that need clarifying or addressing, I'm willing to try and do that but I'm still very busy at the moment and it would be an as and when operation. On another point - does the article still need the tag? It was put up a while ago and the article has changed a lot since.86.180.72.39 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

British Monarchy's Web Site

For what it's worth, the British Monarchy's Web Site stops short of stating that Richard III was responsible for the murder of his nephews, but it does say that he "betrayed" them:https://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheYorkists/TheYorkists.aspx

RogerInPDX (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether that site is worth anything at all... :-) It's fine to cite it, though, if there is something specific you want to add to the article. Deb (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that site considered a "primary source" because it's the official royal website and this article is about two royals? In that case we use primary sources but want to make sure secondary sources also say it and are referenced, I am sure some newspaper or some such reliable source has mentioned what the official website says? I mean cuz it's been in the news recently with Richard III's body being found. Popish Plot (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Miles Forest

What is the point of the discussion about Miles Forest receiving land during the 1530s when it is determined in the same paragraph that this could not be the same Miles Forest referred to in More's account of the Princes' murder? Yes it's a slightly interesting coincidence but since it's not the same Miles Forest (or an extremely unlikely possibility), what does it add to this article? 69.42.36.162 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

---

"However this was 50 years after the Battle of Bosworth Field, and 52 years after the deed was allegedly done, leading to suspicion that this Miles Forrest was not the one referred to by More, as he would by then have been into his seventies or even eighties and well past retirement".

Think like a 16th century political operative, not an armchair historian of the 21st century. Henry VIII was not a modern toothless monarch. He was an exceptionally powerful man who polarised England as he tossed out the Catholic Church, the Pope and made anyone embracing Catholicism as an enemy of the state. It was a time of taking sides, of intense politics, and it came with winners and losers in the game. More was one of the biggest players in the game, for which he paid the ultimate price - and became a Catholic saint for his pains. History gives us the surface facts as told by (a) the winners, and (b) the Church. But what really went on? More was a politician, and as such finding the real story is often a challenge.

Consider the comments of Mr. Horace Walpole (1768) in his Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third:

"But the great source from whence all later historians have taken their materials for the reign of Richard the Third, is Sir Thomas More. Grafton, the next in order, has copied him verbatim: so does Hollingshed -- and we are told by the former in a marginal note, that Sir Thomas was under-sheriff of London when he composed his work. It is in truth a composition, and a very beautiful one. He was then in the vigour of his fancy, and fresh from the study of the Greek and Roman historians, whose manner he has imitated in divers imaginary orations. They serve to lengthen an unknown history of little more than two months into a pretty sizeable volume; but are no more to be received as genuine, than the facts they are adduced to countenance. An under-sheriff of London, aged but twenty-eight, and recently marked with the displeasure of the crown, was not likely to be furnished with materials from any high authority, and could not receive them from the best authority, I mean the adverse party, who were proscribed, and all their chiefs banished or put to death. Let us again recur to dates. (3) Sir Thomas More was born in 1480: he was appointed under-sheriff in 1508, and three years before had offended Henry the Seventh in the tender point of opposing a subsidy. Buck, the apologist of Richard the Third, ascribes the authorities of Sir Thomas to the information of archbishop Morton; and it is true that he had been brought up under that prelate; but Morton died in 1500, when Sir Thomas was but twenty years old, and when he had scarce thought of writing history. What materials he had gathered from his master were probably nothing more than a general narrative of the preceding times in a discourse at dinner or in a winter's evening, if so raw a youth can be supposed to have been admitted to familiarity with a prelate of that rank and prime minister. But granting that such pregnant parts as More's had leaped the barrier of dignity, and insinuated himself into the archbishop's favour; could he have drawn from a more corrupted force? Morton had not only violated his allegiance to Richard; but had been the chief engine to dethrone him, and to plant a bastard scyon in the throne. Of all men living there could not be more suspicious testimony than the prelate's, except the king's: and had the archbishop selected More for the historian of those dark scenes, who had so much interest to blacken Richard, as the man who had risen to be prime minister to his rival? Take it therefore either way; that the archbishop did or did not pitch on a young man of twenty to write that history, his authority was as suspicious as could be.

It may be said, on the other hand, that Sir Thomas, who had smarted for his boldness (for his father, a judge of the king's bench, had been imprisoned and fined for his son's offence) had had little inducement to flatter the Lancastrian cause. It is very true; nor am I inclined to impute adulation to one of the honestest statesmen and brightest names in our annals. He who scorned to save his life by bending to the will of the son, was not likely to canvas the favour of the father, by prostituting his pen to the humour of the court. I take the truth to be, that Sir Thomas wrote his reign of Edward the Fifth as he wrote his Utopia; to amuse his leisure and exercise his fancy. He took up a paltry canvas and embroidered it with a flowing design as his imagination suggested the colours. I should deal more severely with his respected memory on any other hypothesis. He has been guilty of such palpable and material falsehoods, as, while they destroy his credit as an historian, would reproach his veracity as a man, if we could impute them to premeditated perversion of truth, and not to youthful levity and inaccuracy. Standing as they do, the sole groundwork of that reign's history, I am authorized to pronounce the work, invention and romance.

Between 1512 and 1519 when Thomas More was writing his History of King Richard III (he began writing it a couple of years after Henry VIII became King in 1509), he was serving as one of the two undersheriffs of the City of London. During this same time, Miles Forrest was a bailiff serving the Church about 80 miles north of London. In other words, they both were working in the same industry and not far from each other. Was there bad blood between More and Forrest? It is possible that Forrest's ancestor was working for Sir James Tyrrell and More wanted to slander the bailiff Forrest by linking him to his ancestor in a dastardly deed, or it could be pure coincidence (or pure malice). If they did know each other, Forrest would certainly at one time become aware that his name - even if not his person - had been written about. It may be a coincidence, or it may be paybacks.

The point of the discussion is to cite facts - that one Miles Forrest ends up being the winner at the same time one Thomas More loses his head - in hopes that a scholar somewhere in the world (probably England) will notice, and bring more documents to light. Wikipedia documents history, and given its unprecedented exposure, facts that otherwise would lie buried in a dusty library (such as the Old Bodleian Library in Oxford) stand the chance of coming to light, and with them mysteries of history find new answers, new probabilities and sometimes, new facts.

In answer, it is unlikely to be a coincidence. England was too small, too personal in the 16th century, especially when serving as the King's man or Archbishop's man. There is no suggestion at all, that More was confusing the contemporary Forrest with the historic one. But the sins of the father fall on the son, especially in a small country like 16h century England. So leave it stand, invite scholars to do a bit of research and let's see if this footnote to history has a story behind it. ClassicalScholar 10:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

But please bear in mind this policy: Wikipedia:No original research Deb (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The folowing part of the article: "The Great Chronicle, compiled 30 years later from the contemporary London municipal records, says the rumour of the princes' death did not start circulating in London until after Easter of 1484." Now I read this following sentance: "Historians have speculated, on the basis of these contemporary records, that the rumour that the princes had been murdered was deliberately created to be spread in England as an excuse for the October 1483 attempt of Henry Tudor and Buckingham to seize the throne, making Henry and Buckingham other likely suspects".

I have a problem here, because if the historions ACCORDING the records (the monicipal records mentioned in the first sentance), are speculating that the rumour of the princes' death (which according to the monicipal records was spreading not until after easter 1484) was an excuse for a rebelion took place in 1483 - how is it possible that something happend according records in easter 1484 can be an excuse for a rebelion took place in october 1483. Either I didn't read well the sentance, or there is a mistake here with the time chronology.

If someone can explain it well, and needed to correct it, so it will be very good since this is complicated enough as itself and confusing mistakes in the articles make it much harder... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.95 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been 4 years without any real justification for it being there, I have boldly removed it. Here are the sentences in question:

 "Curiously, under Henry VIII, a documented Miles Forrest was granted King's favours as found in English historical documents: "After the Dissolution, the manor of Morborne, with the house and grange of Ogerston in the same parish, lately the property of the Abbey of Crowland, was granted in 1540, with all appurtenances, to Miles Forrest, bailiff of the Abbot of Peterborough at Warmington in 1535."[1] However this was 50 years after the Battle of Bosworth Field, and 52 years after the deed was allegedly done, leading to suspicion that this Miles Forrest was not the one referred to by More. In 1513, Thomas More named Miles Forrest as a murderer. In 1534, More fell out of favour with Henry VIII when More denied that the king was the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Henry had More beheaded in 1535. In the same year or in 1540 (the above history references both dates), Henry awarded the manor to Miles Forrest, the documented bailiff of the Abbot of Peterborough."

Just a Rube (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Tudor Guilt? Some Thoughts

Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII founded Christ's College, Cambridge in 1505 on the advice of her confessor, John Fisher. What did she have to confess which required such a gigantic penance? The foundation required the consent of Henry VII. On her death in 1509 John Fisher was Margaret's executor and he decided her estate should be used to found another college, St. John's, and as people are more munificent in the wills than when they make inter vivos gifts, the second foundation was even more munificently endowed than the first. Henry VII was notoriously mean yet he expended another gigantic sum to complete King's College, Chapel. The final expenditure was, I understand over £6,000, an enormous sum at that time. King's was the college of the man who is thought to have been the doctor to the princes in the Tower. John Fisher was executed by henry VII at the time of the Reformation. Perhaps Henry thought that as he and Fisher had ceased to be close friends, John Fisher needed to be silenced.

None of this proves anything but it is worth recording. I have a special interest. I was a scholar of Christ's College 'Ex fundatione Dominae Margaretae' in the late 1940s. While resident in Cambridge in the 1970s I had the opportunity to discuss this mystery with some of the Fellows of the College over lunch and it was the college archivist, Mr Missen, formerly a member of the staff of the University Library, who told us the princes' doctor was a Fellow of Kings.

Fascinating that a horrible crime may possibly have caused the completion of one of the world's most inspiring pieces of architecture, and the founding of the College of John Milton and Charles Darwin.81.157.47.239 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume you know that Queens' College, Cambridge, was founded by Margaret of Anjou and re-founded by Elizabeth Woodville. And that King's College was founded by Henry VI, a man who certainly never harmed a fly. John Fisher was executed by Henry VIII, not Henry VII, and the reason was that he refused to reject his Roman Catholic faith. Deb (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

More than that, Fisher called upon the Emperor to depose Henry VIII. If he "knew" about the "crime" surely he'd have mentioned it! As for the rest of these "thoughts". Firstly Margaret Beaufort was well know as a patroness of learning. Founding a collage is not so unusual given that. You also neglect that Henry VII sought to bolster the memory of Henry VI (who was his uncle) and tried to have him canonised. Completing Henry VI's project was part of that. In any case, it was standard practice for Monarchs to make such endowments. A way to perpetuate their memory, and help ensure there would be prayers for their souls. Are you suggesting that the Tudors bribed the doctor to murder his patients? This stuff is very tenuous, and whilst it is of interest in itself, about the only thing that belongs on this page would be that the doctor was a Fellow of Kings. I'm amazed at how Ricardians promote things like this, and overlook the much more obvious circumstances that point to Richard III. You could just as easily say Richard's reforms, and his promise to protect Elizabeth Woodville's remaining children, and taking them to court was the result of a "guilty conscience". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.97.242 (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Princes in the Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226004142/http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html to http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

'Bones in the Urn' Probably Not Related to Richard III

Uncertain that this is noteworthy enough to be added as it is up for debate and not entirely conclusive, but here:

Dr. John Ashdown-Hill, a freelance historian, conducted testing in 2016 on the 'bones in the urn' buried in Westminster Abbey, determining through dental records of the two young skeletons and the remains of Richard III discovered in Leicester car park in 2012 by Ashdown-Hill and Philippa Langley that a blood relation between the two sets of remains was probably not likely. The two skulls in Westminster Abbey revealed congenital missing teeth while there is no such genetic anomaly present in Richard III's. "Scientific studies of hypodontia (congenitally missing teeth) have further suggested that the anomaly is relatively rare," Ashdown-Hill notes, "being present in less than 5% of the population, and is slightly more prevalent in the female population. This discovery adds further weight to the many questions now surrounding the identity of the 'bones in the urn', and raises the possibility that the remains may even be those of as yet unidentified females." The bones have not yet undergone further analysis. Ashdown-Hill, John. The bones of the 'Princes in the Tower' show no relationship to Richard III. John's Blog. 27 July 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2018. 2600:8801:2C80:CFD0:78BE:893D:9F98:4A47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Could be, but does Ashdown-Hill have any forensic or medical qualifications that equip him to draw this conclusion? Deb (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Scientific studies of hypodontia (congenitally missing teeth) have further suggested that the anomaly is relatively rare," "

This contradicts our own article on hypodontia: "In a systematic review in the Journal Of Orthodontics, the overall prevalence of hypodontia was found to be 6.4%, with the highest occurrence in Africa (13.4%). There is an increased risk of hypodontia in females than in males. " Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Suspects

Re this statement from the article:

If the boys were indeed murdered, there are several major suspects for the crime.

There is only one main contemporary suspect: Richard III. He had the means, motive and opportunity. All the rest were put under suspicion centuries later by those who, for whatever reason, wish to white-wash Richard. Colin4C 13:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, because you saw it done, didn't you Colin? Sheesh. We have no forensic evidence of when or how the princes died, and the only contemporary account we have which isn't wildly biased is from 400 miles away. We don't know what happened to the princes, nor are we likely to know short of a time machine. --jberkus

Yes Jberkus. I didn't see Richard III die at Bosworth Field, but I don't doubt that he did. I didn't see, or hear, him being proclaimed King instead of his nephew either, but we can be pretty sure that it took place. The two Princes were effectively seized by Richard (one from his procession to London, the other from Sanctuary in Westminster), placed in the Tower, and disappeared from view. Whether he believed they were illegitimate or not doesn't mean that the Princes weren't a threat to Richard. Had they been adults, like Henry VI, Edward of Westminster, Richard II or Edward II (all of whom were murdered by those who'd seized power from them when they proved to be the focus of possible revolt) I don't think that there would have been any dispute, even from the Richard III fan club. The excuse would then been that all these other monarchs (or the Queen Mother Isabella) had committed such crimes for self preservation etc. It seems to me that the big issue is that the dead princes were children, which makes the crime look all the more vile in our eyes, and that the subsequent Tudor regime used the murder of his brother's children to blacken Richard's name and further justify Henry VII's seizure of the crown. So those who want to rehabilitate Richard III try to deny his possible involvement in the crime that's cited as condemning him. Personally I don't think there's any serious doubt that the princes were killed at Richard's orders. They were a threat to him whilst they lived, and he was playing for very high stakes. The Princes could certainly have been presented by his opponents as having a much better claim to the throne than the subsequent claimant Henry VII, and would have provided a stronger rallying point than Henry Tudor. Edward IV had clearly named his son his heir, and made Richard his son's Protector. Richard had then set aside this, and took the opportunity to make himself king. He was, clearly, a usurper, and tried to put forward a claim of illegitimacy for his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville to justify his act. Now you can argue why he did this. Perhaps he feared the ambition of the Woodvilles and their possible influence over Edward V, and that he'd be supplanted as Protector, and possibly killed. Perhaps he really believed that the Woodville marriage was invalid. Perhaps he was simply a chancer who believed in seizing the opportunity when it presented itself. But the fact that as a usurper who'd seized the crown meant that he had to worry about those who would believe that he had no right to it, people who would use the name of his nephews as the rallying cry for rebellion - rebellion which would threaten Richard's life and that of his son! When you're playing for high stakes, you have to be willing to but utterly ruthless. I see no reason why a man willing to disinherit his brother's children wouldn't eliminate them if he felt their continuing existence would threaten his life and power - indeed I think Richard III would hardly have seized power if he weren't willing to go that far if necessary. He would surely have seen it as a case of him or the children (and his own son would surely have been in danger too). The princes were never seen, or heard of, again after 1483, so to claim that Henry VII (the only other man who may have had a motive as great as Richard III) murdered them presupposes that they were somehow kept hidden away in the tower out of sight of everyone for best part of 2 years. Why do this?

His true reasoning for taking over the throne has become blurred in history but history has depicted Richard III as an ambitious opportunist who because of the early death of his brother and the minority of his heirs was able to grab power. Usurpers or new dynasties always feel threatened by the "ghosts of the past". The threat to the new dynasty also played a large role in how the first Tudor monarchs, especially Henry VII and VIII, handled potential threats to their reign vis-à-vis those of the old Plantagenet blood, for instance Warwick (a male line Plantagenet as the son of George of Clarence), the Suffolks (de la Pole family), the 3rd Duke of Buckingham, the Countess of Salisbury (Warwick's sister) and her Pole family,... it is therefore logical that Richard III was of the same mindset and eliminated the most direct threat to his rule presented by his brother's sons. -- fdewaele, 23 May 2011.

Within living memory (he mentions having met Jane Shore, who was condemned by Richard) Thomas More gives us an account of who ordered the murders and how it was done. Though the knee-jerk reaction from Ricardians is to dismiss this as 'Tudor propaganda', More's account was not written for publication and he was in no way in love with the Tudor dynasty. Colin4C 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, More did not witness any of the events himself and only has much-delayed third-hand accounts from people who had other reasons to hate Richard. Second, the provenance of "More's" account of Richard III is far from secure; it is quite possible that it was not actually written by More. Thirdly, More studied under Morton who had a persona hatred of Richard. So More's account alone is evidence so weak as to be nearly worthless. Jberkus 08:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but Moore was much closer to events that you or I are. He could have spoken to still living contemporaries. Take the Kennedy assassination. That was nearly 50 years ago, long before I was born. However I could speak to people who WERE there, and either involved in the investigation, or who were witnesses. Certainly it puts me in a better situation than someone 400 years down the track with their own agenda.

And Thomas More was quite dedicated to the Tudor dynasty pre-1533, certainly in 1513, at the time he wrote his history. 69.42.36.162 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Yes he was "HistoryLunatic", but the Ricardians are even more partisan surely! Why put more weight on their incessent claims that Richard III, who seized his nephew's crown, is an innocent lamb who couldn't possibly have murdered the boys even though they were a potentially deadly threat to his life and power?

I think it's pretty obvious that Richard III was responsible for the murder. He did have the motive, means, and opportunity, as noted above, and even more importantly, no one else had the opportunity, as Richard's nephews were hidden away in the Tower under his custody when they disappeared. However, not everyone accepts this. Even if the only people who don't accept this are those weird Richard III cultists, they are out there, and the article should indicate that there are competing theories. Vidor (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask you to read the arguments before you make your dogmatic statements ? RGCorris (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Richard III's "guilt" was far from "obvious" to the non-cultist jurors who at the C4 Trial of King Richard III (1984), in which not a stone was left unturned, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The real problem here is the sheer credibility of the alternative -- the Duke of Buckingham, who was also the Princes' uncle, had the same access to the Princes, and the same motives for getting rid of them, came out in rebellion immediately after the boys disappeared -- claiming the crown for himself. Proverbially, it is not professional to blame "Peter" when it could so easily have been "Paul". (204.112.68.51 (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm not sure that your timing is correct. The rumours about the princes' death were not widespread at the time of Buckingham's rebellion. Deb (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But Buckingham was Constable of England, with free and unquestioned access to the Tower and the Princes. The facts are that the Princes were last seen in the summer of 1483. Richard III left on progress to the north in July. Buckingham remained in London and joined Richard later in Gloucester. Therefore, to say that NO one else except Richard had opportunity incorrect. 69.42.36.162 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

The matter of rumour propagation is irrelevant to the fact that Buckingham could easily have been the murderer. If in any situation there are two likely candidates, it will never be professional, safe or satisfactory to convict one when it could have been the other. (204.112.70.144 (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

It is relevant when you make it one of your arguments for Buckingham's guilt. Deb (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was Buckingham who actually committed the murders, or hired the actual murderers, he would almost certainly have been acting on the orders of Richard III. I really cannot see what's controversial about this. Richard III disinherited his nephews, and seized the crown for himself. No one disputes this - although there are those who make excuses for him doing so. What the Ricardians gloss over is the fact that Richard III was playing for very high stakes. If he'd failed in his attempt to seize the crown, he'd have lost his life, as probably would his son. He certainly could not have allowed the Woodville/Edward V faction to regain power, and the surest way of doing this was to eliminate the boys. They certainly disappeared in 1483, and weren't seen after that year. This pretty much eliminates Henry VII from any personal involvement. The murder of the rightful king wasn't unprecedented. Arthur of Brittany was murdered on the order of King John (his uncle who usurped the throne). Henry I imprisoned and then blinded his older brother Richard to prevent him being a rival. Edward II was almost certainly murdered (unless you believe the story of him wandering Italy as a vagabond - highly unlikely) by agents of his estranged wife Isabella of France and her lover Mortimer. Richard II was starved to death by the order the usurper Henry IV. Henry VI was almost certainly murdered on the orders of Edward IV to ensure that he couldn't be the focus of any rebellion as he had been when Warwick turned on him (he also had Henry's son Edward Prince of Wales murdered for the same reason). Henry VIII had several of the de la Poles "judicially murdered" whilst his own succession was "doubtful" as in the absence of a legitimate son for Henry, they could claim to be his heirs, and may have decided to strike before he was able to "remedy" the situation. Mary I had Lady Jane Grey executed following the Wyatt rebellion least she be the focus of any more Protestant revolts, and came close to having Elizabeth I executed similarly. Elizabeth I herself signed the death warrant for Mary Queen of Scots due to her being the focus for attempts to overthrow the Elizabethan regime! Given all of that, why is there this stubborn insistence that Richard III could not possibly have been responsible for ordering the deaths of his nephews? As for the “trial”… There is a difference between him actually committing the dead by his own hands, and him being responsible for the murders. None of those other royal deaths/murders were committed by the crowned monarchs of the time (or Dowager Queen in the case of Isabella), but they were certainly responsible as they needed to eliminate the focus of opposition! Similar motives have happened for later killings: such as the execution of Charles I; the execution of Louis XVI and the “disappearance” of his son; the massacre of Tsar Nicholas II and his family. In all cases, their existence was a threat to the new regime as they were a point around which opponents could rally. Why insist that Richard III, alone, was immune? He certainly had no qualms about seizing the crown, or taking the younger Prince Richard away from his mother lest he be used against him.

By all means point out that Richard’s ruthlessness was hardly worse than that of Henry VIII, and perhaps less than Mary I, and certainly no worse than Henry IV, or his own brother Edward IV. Point out his abilities etc if you wish, but I think it’s going too far to try to pretend that he somehow wasn’t responsible for the disappearance, and presumably deaths, of his nephews, who certainly disappeared during the time of his rule, when they were under his authority! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.89.1.33 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I probably should say that in the case of Buckingham, the idea that he murdered the Princes so he could champion the cause of Henry Tudor due to Margaret Beaufort being his relation is a pretty long bow to draw! He clearly fell out with Richard. Whether that was "horror" at the murder of the young Princes, or anger at not getting the preferment’s from Richard I'll leave to others. The point is that he didn't make his own bid for the throne. So where does that leave his self interest? Well presumably he expected to be well rewarded for his support of the next King. But given that, he would surely have done better to have acted in the name of Edward V or his brother Richard. Both were minors, and he could have even ruled through them. The leading Woodvilles were already dead, so he'd hardly have been in mortal fear of Earl Rivers. Henry Tudor, although in exile and out of touch, was a full adult, and capable of making his own decisions, and thus would have been less "malleable" than the Princes. He wouldn't have been any easier to dispose of than the Princes either should Buckingham have made a tilt at the throne himself in due course. All in all, I just cannot see Buckingham murdering the boys for the sake of winning backing for Henry Tudor. If he killed the boys, it would either have been at Richard III's orders, or to please Richard by removing the threat they posed whilst sparing him the guilt of murdering his nephews. I think it's fairly obvious that Buckingham would have done much better out of restoring the BoyKing, and ruling through him, than throwing in his lot with the adult outsider Henry Tudor. Backing Edward V would have won much more Yorkist support than the obscure Lancastrian claimant as well.

Thomas More may have been closer to that time period to tell the story, but he wasn't a grown man in 1483. He was 5 years old! Also, he was writing for the Tudors so his version of what happened to the Princes in the tower should be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowgirl44x44 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard III's Coronation

In the last paragraph of the Background section of this article, it states: "Gloucester was crowned King Richard III of England on 3 July." I thought the date was 6 July, which is the date given in Richard III's article, but I hesitated to change it since there is a citation here (Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton, The Coronation of Richard III: the Extant Documents (Palgrave Macmillan, 1984). Did I catch a typo? Or does the Hammond/Sutton reference show something else? Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic

That's interesting - I haven't looked at the source but since it is what our article on Richard III says, I think it's quite valid to amend it. There are certainly references - like this one that say 6th July. Deb (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Television and audio

Would it be worth mentioning in the television portion of the "In popular culture" section of the article the The Shadow of the Tower, the 1972 BBC series based on the reign of Henry VII. Though the Princes do not appear, Perkin Warbeck and his challenge to Henry as the purported Richard, Duke of York is a key plot point in several episodes, though the series does not suggest he really was Richard. Also in the third episode the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower is referred to by Elizabeth Woodville and John, Earl of Lincoln during confrontations with Henry in the wake of the emergence of Lambert Simnel. Additionally there is not a section for audio, but the The Kingmaker is an audio Doctor Who story that centres on what happened to the Princes in the Tower (even if it comes up with a solution that is rather implausible to say the least), so again might be worth mentioning. Dunarc (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC) Amended and expanded by Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that most of the content that's already in that section is worth including, tbh. Deb (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point as some of it is quite tangential to the subject, though I think others like the Channel 4 "trial" are probably worth mentioning. Dunarc (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The tower of london

The tower of london 2A00:23C6:FA21:BE01:90C0:5DC9:8E41:20A3 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Edits by user 167.98.118.226

There were several edits to this article on 23 June by a user at this IP address. At first it looked like an edit war was brewing, until I saw that all edits were by the same user. This user has been warned repeatedly in the past about this sort of thing and directed multiple times to the sandbox, with no response. (See their talk page.) I'm posting this to give a heads up to more regular editors; it may be time to consider restrict this user's editing privileges. History Lunatic (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)History Lunatic

Background section — clarification needed?

The last sentence of the first graf in this section, referring to the succession, reads:

Edward's request may not have mattered, however, since "as the precedent of Henry V showed, the Privy Council was not bound to follow the wishes of a dead king".

It's not clear what this specific precedent was, or whether it was a wish of a dead Henry IV or a dead Henry V that was ignored by the Privy Council. I tried finding an explicit reference to this in both of those articles, but couldn't. If someone can, I'd love their help, but in any event an explanation might improve this article, I think. Matuko (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Langley document / documentary

I recently made a minor, but significant, change to the text of the article.

With regard to the '1493 witness statement purported to have been written by Richard describing his escape and flight to Europe, which has been independently authenticated as a genuine document',

I've changed the latter part of this sentence to say...

'independently authenticated as a late 15th century document'.

It was clearly the weakest part of the recent Langley documentary that experts were only asked to confirm if the document looked like it dated to the late 15th century, rather than being asked if the statements made in the document were likely to be true - which was evidently the more important issue (obviously it is possible that the document was written in the late 15th century, but by somebody falsely claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury).

The original article text re: 'independently authenticated as a genuine document' would seem to gloss over this important distinction, so I'd suggest that the revised wording above is a more accurate representation of what the archivists were actually asked to confirm re: the age of the document. (If I recall correctly, Janina Ramirez poured cold water over the idea that the contents of the document were likely to be true.) Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen the program, being outside the UK, but I bought the book, and would like to point out that "the more important issue" is just the one which experts cannot settle objectively: that is the whole point around which the mystery grows. Experts who believe the princes were murdered in the Tower will find it unlikely to be true, because they think they were dead, and those who do not think so will find it believable because, if they were not dead, somewhere they must have been.

I must say howerver that I find the "internal" arguments for the account to be true have some merit. The account of how the duke of York was taken away from the Tower is a detailed statement about people and places; Langley has checked that these people might well have been there at the time. 93.36.218.51 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem with all these possible scenarios is that they are all mutually exclusive. Deb (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really, though. Of course, if the duke of York was “Perkin” he can’t have died in the Tower. But if he wasn’t, that still doesn’t prove he did. 79.52.45.84 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recent change that states that "This document reveals that the Dublin king was actually Edward V and not an imposter posing as his cousin Edward of Warwick, as later given out by Henry Tudor's government", while that is Philippa Langley's opinion (and no doubt the opinion of some who have read her book) it is very much not the opinion of the majority of historians. It is obviously against Wikipedia policy for individual editors to alter Wikipedia to reflect fringe opinion.

Really the relevant part of the article needs to be rewritten by someone capable of expressing a WP:NPOV, rather than someone presenting their own unmoderated opinion.

History is supposed to be about assessing different sources, considering the intent of the person who wrote them, any possible bias, etc., etc. It is not about simply assuming that the contents of a given document are true because they happen to support one's favoured theory. Axad12 (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. The document is no opinion, it is in the book quoted for you to read and critcize both in point of authenticity, and of veracity, but simply to suppress the mention of it is imposing your own POV on the article. Please reinstate the contents, add the caveats you see fit if you like. 93.36.218.51 (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to hopefully clarify a couple of things…

It’s well known that in the early years of Henry VII’s reign two individuals were travelling around Europe at different times trying to drum up support for an invasion of England. It is also well known that Margaret of York/Burgundy was prepared to identify these individuals as one or other of the princes in the tower (even though those princes had not been born when she left England in 1468). Furthermore, based primarily on Margaret of Burgundy’s identification, various figures in mainland Europe/Scotland/Ireland were prepared to accept these individuals as one or other of the princes in the tower.

None of that is new, and documents offering further evidence of the situation above (such as those identified by Philippa Langley) don’t really add very much to that picture.

If someone intends to claim that the princes in the tower were not murdered, and that they subsequently ended up as the individuals known to history as Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, then it simply isn’t good enough for that person to just dismiss all evidence that doesn’t fit with their theory as ‘Tudor propaganda’ and to accept all evidence that does fit with their theory without consideration of whether, for example, Margaret of Burgundy (and various other figures outside of England) might have had ulterior motives for legitimising hitherto unknown individuals as the figureheads of Yorkist insurrections.

Personally I don’t have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the real identities of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck – but I do object very strongly to the kind of non-academic pseudo-history described in the paragraph above.

To be honest I think that the article as it stood (at around the middle of Nov 2023) did a very good job of assessing the evidence, putting forward different theories and considering their strengths and weaknesses. That is what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do.

I appreciate that Philippa Langley believes that she was “re-writing history”, but that isn’t enough justification for her disciples to start “re-writing Wikipedia”.

(As a final note, I did not make the recent edit which removed your various additions - however, I do agree with it. User Deb has added some points below for you which you will hopefully find helpful.) Axad12 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to a page such as this, which has often been subject to vandalism, conspiracy theorists and the addition of poorly-sourced or unsourced content, you will need to learn to use Wikipedia correctly. Pay particular attention to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, and ensure you cite your sources in accordance with the guidelines. Deb (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I did see the recent documentary with Philippa Langley, and I found the evidence very insubstantial, for a number of reasons which I could go into. PatGallacher (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Disappointing to see that the showing of this documentary seems to have provoked a wave of very poor edits to both this Wikipedia page and various other 'princes in the tower'-related Wikipedia pages (e.g. Perkin Warbeck, Lambert Simnel, Edward V, Richard of Shrewsbury, Dominic Mancini, etc).

Thank you to the various editors who have stepped in to revert the various edits, issued appropriate warnings and given some of the pages semi-protected status. Axad12 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone add the Big Finish play The Kingmaker to the "In popular culture" section? I'm surprised it's not already mentioned given how heavily the Princes are involved in the plot. 64.228.66.90 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits, specifically those by User:Alvispat, have been worded so as to suggest that Philippa Langley's latest "evidence" that one or both of the princes survived their stay in the Tower is ground-breaking. These are not new theories and too much weight is being given to them here. Deb (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)