Suspects

With current information, it cannot be concluded if the princes were murdered, or if they were, when this happened, let alone who was responsible. There are three main suspects in the case: Richard III; Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; and Henry VII. Although only the most deluded make grand assumptions regarding an individual's guilt or innocence, I have to admit I lean towards the idea that they were murdered by Richard III, largely because it is the simplest answer. However, I still allow myself flights of fancy that one or both of them survived and lived in secret. Having now admitted my bias, here are the main arguments about these suspects.

Richard III

• The boys disappeared from public view in the Summer of 1483, and there is no evidence that they were ever seen again. It seems unlikely that they were so well hidden that no one knew where they were hidden.
• Although Titulus Regius made the boys illegitimate, they still posed a threat to Richard's reign as a focus of rebellion. That he hid them away is proof of this. However, if he had them murdered for this reason, it would not make sense to then hide the fact that they were dead. Murdering them quietly seems to be the worst of both worlds; no one really knew if the boys were dead, but the rumours had already started that Richard had murdered them.
• The conduct of the princes' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, appears to be a point in Richard's favour. If the princes were murdered by Richard in 1483, it seems unlikely that Elizabeth would not have known they were dead and could have guessed who the murderer was, And yet she released her daughters into his custody and urged her son Dorset to return and make peace with the king. Although this behaviour does not preclude that idea that she knew Richard was the murderer, it seems unlikley behaviour towards the murderer of her sons. Her later behaviour under Henry VII's rule seems to indicate that she did not believe her sons were dead.
• There was a history of usurpers murdering the kings they had deposed. John had killed Arthur of Brittany, Henry IV killed Richard II and his own brother, Edward IV had killed Henry VI, a deed Richard would have been well aware of.
• The boys were being held in the Tower of London. If they were murdered before August 1485 it was most probably done with Richard's knowledge. The King would have had to have given his authority for access to such important prisoners.
• Even if Richard killed the princes, before him in line to the throne was Clarence's young son, the Earl of Warwick. If Richard killed the princes why did he not also kill him? However, this is not a strong point in Richard's favour. Warwick was a minor, his father had been executed, and it is possible that Warwick was weak-minded. He may not have been considered a serious rival for the throne.

the Duke of Buckingham

• It is possible that Buckingham stayed behind in London in July 1483 when Richard went north on his progress, and joined the royal party at Gloucester. At this time, Buckingham was Lord High Constable of England and the most important man in the kingdom after the king.
• Buckingham was descended from Edward III's fifth son, Thomas of Woodstock. His claim was not as strong as Richard's or the princes, but would have been stronger than Henry VII's, who was descended from the illegitimate Beaufort line. Perhaps he meant to murder the princes and blame it on Richard, hoping to provoke rebellion over the issue and seize the throne for himself. Or he may have intended to put Henry VII on the throne, with a "kingmaker" role for himself in mind. Either way, the princes were a definite obstacle.
• Buckingham's guilt might better explain the conduct of Elizabeth Woodville during Richard's reign. If she knew Buckingham to be guilty and not Richard, she would be more likely to give her daughters into his custordy.
• Perhaps Henry VII knew Buckingham was guilty, and this is why he never publicly accused anyone of the crimes - afterall, Buckingham had rebelled in 1483 to support Henry's cause. By accusing Buckingham, he may have been tarred with the same brush.
• Would Buckingham have had access to the princes in the Tower? Perhaps access was not denied to so powerful a man, but it is unlikely that he would have had access to such important political prisoners without the king's authority and consent.
• If Buckingham was guilty, why didn't Richard publicly accuse him and provide evidence, thereby nullifying the rumours against himself? Would it have been too difficult to believe that Richard had not been involved? This didn't stop Edward IV announcing that Henry VI had died of "displeasure".

Henry VII

• Henry VII's claim to the throne was very weak. He hoped to bolster his claim be marrying Elizabeth of York. To this end he repealed Titulus Regius, the Act making the children of Edward IV illegitimate. The repealing of this Act made Edward V the rightful king, if he was still alive. There is no absolute evidence that the boys were alive after 1483, but if Henry found them still alive in August 1485, they were a greater threat to his throne than they had been to Richard's in 1483.
• There is speculation that Tyrell, the man accused of murdering the princes by More, did indeed murder the boys, but by order of Henry, not Richard. Henry issued Tyrell with two general pardons in 1486. One on 15 June and another on 17 July. Perhaps the boys were murdered in this interval. In February 1487 Henry also exchanged Tyrell's lands in Wales for holdings in Guisnes. Perhaps the discovery of what her son-in-law had done was the true reason for Elizabeth's being sent to a convent in 1487.
• The most significant point in Henry's favour is his behaviour during the Simnel and Warbeck rebellions. It seems to indicate that Henry didn't really know whether the boys were dead or alive. This could be seen as a point in Richard's favour, as it would mean that Henry was not sure that they had been murdered. If Henry had murdered the boys he would not have needed to so thoroughly have investigated the backgrounds of the pretenders, he would have known they couldn't be the missing sons of Edward IV.
• Henry never specifically charged Richard III with the murders when he could have. Some have interpreted this as evidence that Henry knew Richard had not killed them. It is more likely that Henry did not know what happened to the princes.

  Other Suspects

  Other suspects include Margaret Beaufort; her husband, Lord Stanley; Bishop Morton; John Howard, the Duke of Norfolk. These individuals all have motives of lesser of greater degree, but the idea of their guilt becomes unstuck at the same point; access. They would not have had access to the princes in the Tower of London.

  Skeletons in the Tower

  or skip to a section.... Richard III Myths A Murderer? A Usurper? Princes in the Tower Skeletons in the Tower

  Intro

  History

  People

  Battles

  Music

  Timeline

  Links

  Bibliography