#The Princes In The Tower

[lasthumaninwales]

Inspired by this post by @bunniesandbeheadings , a list of explanations for what happened to the Princes in the Tower:

They both fell down the stairs.

They murdered EACH OTHER.

Everyone who has been accused of murdering them turned up to murder them at the same time, only to find they had died of natural causes already, so they all backed out of the room without saying anything.

They escaped out of the window by tying bedsheets together.

They were murdered by George Duke of Clarence's ghost.

Aliens.

Autocannibalism.

Spontaneous human combustion.

The plot of season one of Blackadder is 100% factually accurate.

They were eaten by wolves.

A surge of improbability caused them both to turn into bowls of petunias.

They became companions of the Doctor and ended up settling down on a planet three galaxies away.

They are both still alive TO THIS DAY.

[artthatgivesmefeelings]

Sir John Everett Millais (English, 1829-1896) The Princes in the Tower, 1878 Royal Holloway College

[a-hoe-for-dark-academia]

-“Twins in a dream” by @a-hoe-for-dark-academia | “The princes in the tower” by John Everett Millais.

[awkward-sultana]

The White Queen + Hair Moments in 1.09: The Princes in the Tower

[ynkfva]

happy birthday to my favorite scoliosis king!!!

he was the target of my second longest hyperfixation and im not even british

anyway take a look at his skeleton

[foreverinthepagesofhistoryy]

Royal Autumn 2024 Photo Challenge

Day 13: Favorite Photos of Royals with Ancestors

Photos 1 and 2; Princess Margaret and Prince Arthur of Connaught, children of Prince Arthur Duke or Connaught and Grandchildren of Queen Victoria, dressing up as distant ancestors King Edward V of England and Prince Richard Duke of York for a Tableaux

Photo 3: Drawing of King Edward V and Prince Richard done by descendant Princess Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse and By Rhine, third child of Queen Victoria

A brief history of these two brothers, most commonly known as “The Princes In The Tower” is as followed: When King Edward IV died, his eldest son Edward automatically became king but as he was only 12 years old, a regent monarch would need to rule until he became an adult. Edward and his party started to make the journey from Wales (where he was being educated to be the future king) to London but were intercepted by Richard Duke of Gloucester’s party who took custody and control of him and his party. Richard, who was King Edward IV’s brother and Edward V’s paternal uncle, was declared regent after the dying Edward IV wished it to be so and eventually had three members of Edward V’s party executed and placed Edward V in the Tower of London to have complete control over the young king. Despite pleas from mother Elizabeth Woodville, who took her remaining children into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey, her younger son Richard was eventually taken away from her and was placed in the tower with his brother. This was in May of 1483. A coronation for Edward was to be immediately planned as this is what would allow Richard to be a legal protectorate but it was repeatedly postponed by Richard himself.

In June of 1483, it was declared from parliament that all children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were illegitimate and the same with the children of brother of the former king George Duke Of Clarence (who was already dead at this time) so Richard was seen as the legitimate king and a day later acceded to the throne as Richard III. After Richard became king, the princes were taken into the inner apartments of the Tower and were seen less and less until the Autumn of 1843 when they disappeared from public view entirely. After the young princes disappearance, it was widely accepted that they were killed on the orders of their Uncle Richard and were smothered to death in their sleep, this theory is most accurate because Richard had complete access to them and men so loyal that they would do anything for their king.

In 1674, close to two hundred years later, two sets of skeletons resembling two children were found by workers who were rebuilding a staircase in the Tower. King Charles II ordered that the bones be placed in an urn marked with the children’s names on it which was located in Westminster Abbey until 1933 when it was reopened to be examined under the orders of King George V. Some animal bones were found within these two sets of children’s skeletons and since in 1933 modern DNA testing wasn’t invented yet, the tomb was closed. Further reopening the tomb and testing has been denied, so ultimately we still do not factually know if these are the true Princes in the Tower

~

[skytouches]

I don’t have a theory per se yet, but I am stewing on the connection between the Tower Princes (Gideon and Ianthe) and the Prrinces in the Tower — the sons and heirs of King Edward IV, Edward V and his younger brother Prince Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York — they were locked in the Tower of London by their uncle (who was rumored and theorized to have murdered them) and who then took the throne himself as Richard III

[kateshistoryspot]

The New Evidence Concerning The Princes In The Tower: What Does This Mean?

In 1483, the nephews of the future King Richard III, the future King Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, went missing. Even during the time period, the concept that two royal princes could just disappear into thin air was absurd, and because a previous heir apparent had been found dead under mysterious circumstances, the worst was assumed by the public. Richard III would only reign two years, dying at The Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, causing the House of Plantagenet to lose power for the first time since the 12th century. With the years following the disappearance, fingers pointed to Richard for having caused and concealed the deaths, yet in the 20th century, an organization dedicated to rehabilitating Richard's name (aptly named The Richard III Society) began proposing that someone other than Richard- if anyone had at all- had destroyed his nephews. After the success of the Finding Richard Project in 2012, the RIII Society was taken more seriously, and they vowed to find his missing nephews next.

However, a few days ago, what some are hailing as "damnable" evidence was found: a relative of the infamous Sir James Tyrell, who was accused by King Henry VII and Queen Elisabeth of York as having done the deed for Richard III, was found to be in possession of a "Cheyne which was Yonge kynge Edward the Vth.” As those who believe Richard III was usurping tyrant celebrate this find, we should look into what this means as an article of history.

First of all, lets look at what the document is: the new information comes from the 1516 will of Lady Margaret Capell, who was half sister to Sir James Tyrell's wife. In her will, Margaret wrote:

“I bequeath to my sonne Sir Giles his fadres Cheyne which was Yonge kynge Edward the Vth.”

Now, at face value, this looks pretty bad: why does James Tyrell's family have ANYTHING of Edward V's? Yet, it was very common for kings and princes to gift trinkets and jewelry to people who had done them some service. Tyrell had been knighted in 1471 by King Edward IV, later entering the service of Richard, then Duke of Gloucester. Once Richard assumed the throne, Tyrell became High Sheriff of Cornwall. Yet, things would come crashing down with the untimely death of the king, and the coronation of Henry VII, who needed to prove that his brothers-in-law were dead. This meant that he needed some proof that there were no other claimants, and so he imprisoned Tyrell with the hopes that he would confess, which he did.

So, James would have been, under most circumstances, near the Royal Household. This gives us three options as to how Tyrell became the owner of Edward's chain:

Theory 1: Tyrell did something worthy of honor and Edward gave him a token of gratitude.

It wasn't uncommon for kings to give away pieces of jewelry and trinkets to people who do some good for them. Although the late Middle Ages were steeped in record keeping, it seems that there isn't much from the Royal Household during this time period. It could be that, like the will, any documentation of the sentiment was lost, or at least yet to be found.

Theory 2: The chain was for Tyrell's role as High Sheriff of Cornwall.

One of the things I think were overlooked when this document came to light is that Tyrell and Edward held the same office: Edward was granted the title as an infant, while Tyrell was granted it in 1483. This means that, under the circumstances at play, Tyrell could have been given Richard's chain, which very well might have also belonged to Edward. When the will was written, Richard III was not someone you wanted to have ties to: people thought very poorly of him for how he came to the throne and how he died. This could have led Margaret to gloss over Richard's ownership of the chain and emphasize more on Edward's ownership. This would also allow them family to distance themselves from their involvement with Richard III, and align themselves with the newly crowned King Henry VIII.

Theory 3: James Tyrell kept the chain as a trophy for the crime he committed.

This theory relies heavily on the concept of Ocam's Razor: that the simplest reason for something is what happened, or that Richard did away with his nephews with the help of James Tyrell, and he kept the chain as a memento for his crimes. This doesn't really explain everything, but it is a possibility, I guess.

What do you think happened? Is Richard innocent? Is the chain just a happenstance?

[richmond-rex]

Hi there

So I follow the Tudor Trio and Nicola Tallis, Matthew Lewis and Nathan Amin were doing a debate today on the Princes in the Tower with the quote on quote new evidence that has been revealed from Philippa Langley.

I still firmly believe Richard III killed the Princes and find many of Matthew Lewis' arguments bizarre. I'm not sure why he thinks the Princes weren't a threat to Richard but were to Henry VII. If the Princes weren't a threat to Richard then why would they have been a threat to Henry VII? I can't understand why Richard would ever let them escape England of his own free Will. There is almost no chance they could have escaped without him knowing about it.

Also he claimed that Henry VII sent Elizabeth Woodville to Bermondsey Abbey and that she was supporting the Lambert Simnel Rebellion. Is there any truth to that? Thanks!

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply! Lewis' arguments are so incredibly ridiculous — they largely rest on accepting at face value people's signatures and on the claim that Maximilian and Margaret of York were too blue-blooded to ever lie for political ends: essentially, he claims lying was for peasants. And yes, the princes would absolutely be a threat to Richard III as he found out as soon as he left London after his coronation — there happened a rebellion made by former Edwardian servants that aimed to free the princes from the Tower, very possibly to restore them to the throne. The princes had been raised all their lives to regard the English throne as their birthright — you're telling me they would grow up abroad and would neve try a restoration aided by one of England's political enemies such as France?

The ricardian claim that Richard III sent them to Burgundy is incredibly ridiculous to me as well: even if they stayed with Richard's sister, she wasn't the one ruling Burgundy — Maximilian of Austria, the husband of Margaret's deceased daughter-in-law, was. How could Richard be sure Maximilian wouldn't take the princes the minute Richard did something that went against Maximilian's interests and use them to either blackmail him or depose him so Maximilian could have his own English king? Burgundy had displayed lancastrian loyalties not so long ago in the past and the political game in Europe changed constantly.

It would have been absolutely STUPID of Richard III to deliver the strongest weapon anyone could use against him to a foreign power. Let's also mention that Maximilian at the time was struggling with controlling his own children, the actual Burgundian heirs, because some Flemish cities had rebelled against him and had his heir (Philip of Burgundy) in their power and were up in arms against his regency. From June 1483 to July 1485 Maximilian couldn't have control of his own son. You're telling me Richard would have sent the biggest assets anyone could use against him to that unstable scenario?

The truth is that Ricardians like Matthew Lewis benefit from the fact that people study/know about the Wars of the Roses from an impossibly anglocentric lens, ignoring that the conflict was also the outcome of the multiple iterations of power play between Western European powers: 'the Wars of the Roses were an extended episode in a European conflict, not just a murderous private dispute'. It really is inconceivable, when it comes down to logic, how Richard was one step ahead of everyone during the mounting off to his takeover of the throne (bamboozling and imprisoning the Woodvilles, executing and imprisoning Edward V's strongest supporters such as Hastings) but would commit such a basic political error as sending other claimants to his own crown to a foreign power.

As to Elizabeth Woodville going to Bermondsey Abbey as a way of punishment for her supporting a rebellion against Henry VII, it makes little sense as well. Henry VII carried on with the marriage negotiations with Scotland that involved Elizabeth and two of her daughters until James III's death in 1488. Again, it would make little sense for Henry VII to have found out Elizabeth was conspiring against him but keep wanting to send her north as an ally to Scotland, a country that could easily make war on him and create problems. Why would he deliver an enemy into the hands of another possible enemy, if Elizabeth truly conspired against him? Again, it's the lack of perspective into Europe and international politics that jump out in Lewis' logic.

Do my words make sense to you? I truly cannot comprehend how Lewis can say the stuff he says and no one really contradicts him in his logic.

[poetessinthepit]

Me on a date: what do you think happened to the princes in the tower after the summer of 1483?

[shybasementkid]

the princes in the tower were my roman empire

[buffyfan145]

Looks like Philippa Langley might've done it again as she's written a new book about new evidence she and other historians have found that Edward V and Prince Richard of York actually escaped and were never murdered. Her book is out now in the UK and this is one of the many articles coming out ahead of the documentary that's getting ready to air in the UK this weekend and here in the US on PBS the 22nd, and from what I'm reading these new pieces of evidence does seem to point to the boys actually making it to Europe and that both those pretenders actually were them. One of new evidence found in the Netherlands is a written confession supposedly by Richard of York in Rome detailing how he and his brother escaped. The new evidence is coming from both Italy and France and has been authenticated to the correct time period during Henry VII's reign.

They're saying the new evidence has already changed some minds about this and I'll judge for myself when I watch the doc next week (as either the book doesn't have a US release date yet or my library isn't getting it) but Philippa already was able to find Richard III's remains and get him reburied, and this has been a long thing to clear up just like they did with proving that Shakespeare and others made him more monstrous than he was. My belief was that Richard III might've ordered the princes deaths (as that was common with monarchs and who they deem as threats to the throne) and then regretted it, but maybe so many of us have been wrong this whole time. Again this proves why the whole Wars of the Roses is one of my favorite historical time periods and things are still playing out.

[always-tired-plshelp]

My Roman Empire is the many similarities Captive Prince holds with Hamlet and The Tragedy Of The Princes In The Tower. Something about a spare plotting against his brother and his nephew(s) to take over a throne, an open secret and an open shut case that no one would dare to address. Yeah.

[foreverinthepagesofhistory]

The Princes in the Tower (painting)

Prince Richard and King Edward V depicted in the Tower of London, 1483

Painting done by Sir John Everett Millais, circa 1879

[awkward-sultana]

(Almost) Every Costume Per Episode + Anne Neville's dark red and gold gown in 1x08,9,10

[cottoncandiescupcakes]