3 Questions I Still Have About The Princes in the Tower: New Evidence
Is the mystery solved? Ehhhhh....
Philippa Langley, from greatest hits such as spearheading the project that found Richard III’s body in a Leicester car park, is back at it again to solve the mystery of what happened to the princes in the Tower in a new book and BBC Channel 4 documentary she co-presents with criminal barrister Robert Rinder. She takes the approach of a police cold case. Langley is a member of the Richard III Society and a noted big fan of the infamous king, to the point that many view her as an ardent Richard defender. In this latest documentary, her theory is that the princes survived, and Richard III didn’t murder them. Shocked, shocked, I say that this is her hypothesis.
For some historical context, Richard III essentially usurped the English throne from his nephew, Edward V, after the death of Richard’s brother, Edward IV, in 1483. Richard then took custody of his nephews, had their maternal uncle, who had them in his charge killed, and put them in the Tower. Initially, it looked like he was keeping them there ahead of Edward’s coronation, a coronation that was quickly canceled, and the princes declared bastards by Richard due to a supposed previous betrothal Edward IV had, meaning his children with Elizabeth Woodville were now illegitimate. Sometime later that year, they disappeared entirely, with no record of whether they died, survived, or escaped. The popular theory is that Richard III had them murdered. Despite declaring them illegitimate, rebellions could still rise, propping them up as claimants to the throne. Mind you, nothing has yet to be concretely proven as to what happened. ‘Tis a big 500+-year-old mystery, though Langley feels she has close to an answer.
Well, maybe. Let’s not get hasty.
The background on this is that after the success of the ‘Finding Richard Project,’ Langley started up the ‘Missing Princes Project,’ asking supporters to scour archives from around the dates the princes were in the Tower and dates around the Simmel-Warbeck rebellions and look for further clues. This led to over 300 supporters and numerous data submitted, but the documentary focuses mainly on three found documents. After watching the documentary, it left me slightly yelling at the screen and with more questions/statements.
1. Where That Provenance At?
The four main '‘big’ pieces of evidence are:
A 1493 document written by a scribe at Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I’s court who wrote why Maximilian believed the man in the witness statement made by Margaret of Burgundy (the princes’ aunt, sister to Edward IV and Richard III) was young Prince Richard
A 1493 first-hand account letter claiming to be from Richard from his time in the Tower and how Henry and Thomas Percy smuggled him out
A letter/charter from 1483 Holland offering 30,000 florins to Duke Albert of Saxony after ‘Richard’ gains the English throne, with royal seals attached
A receipt for weapons to the ‘son of Edward IV’ for the 1487 Yorkist invasion of England that Lambert Simmel (claiming to be either Edward V or his cousin Edward Earl of Warwick)
Of these four, while experts have authenticated them to be of the period, the provenance of most of this is shaky to non-existent. With the 1493 first-person Tower account, even an archivist where the letter is held says they don’t have provenance in the documentary. Still, Langley seems so sure it’s Richard because it sounds like Richard and mentions vital players of the time like the Percys. They don’t seem to question or account for that yes, even in medieval times, letters could be forged or written by pretenders who weren't going to say “BTW I’m lying” while running the con. Dr. Janina Ramirez, interviewed in this, leans towards it being too good to be true.
Also, where is the 9-year-old allegedly illegitimate Richard getting a royal seal either in the Tower or after fleeing? Just because that charter to Duke of Saxony had a seal doesn’t mean it’s not a clever fake by Warbeck or other pretenders. No one asks where the seal came from.
All this tells me is that there were documents at the time from someone claiming to be Richard that have turned up, but it doesn’t prove it was or wasn’t him definitively, and we have no idea where some originally actually came from.
Elizabeth of York Excluded From the Narrative
This documentary doesn’t even mention or touch on that if Warbeck was Richard, why didn’t Elizabeth of York just confirm it? Not even theories for or against it, they never even explore it. That seems like a massive gap in this theory that Warbeck was probably actually Richard, that the princes survived, etc.
How Did Margaret of Burgundy Know Those 3 Points of Recognition?
It’s doubtful Margret saw the princes when they were born and growing up as she was on the Continent all that time, so it’s curious to me how she knew or recognized those three signs that Warbeck was Richard that she used in her witness statement that it was him. Were these three things corroborated elsewhere in records, or is this just a nice convenient thing Margaret could claim? She had an agenda, and it behooves to remember this, and also same with Maximilian I. Margaret didn’t necessarily need it to be the real Richard, but close enough could do to suit her goals.
Overall, I will say I think it’s a great idea to open up to having more data looked at and more archives explored, but this documentary doesn’t prove anything for or against whether they escaped and lived or were murdered, despite what Langley strongly wants to believe. It does open up some more questions, and some potentially interesting finds to advance it onwards. If this sparks more scholarly work exploring this, that’s awesome, but this also definitely needs that favorite thing of all academics- peer review.
And also, you know, exploration and research beyond Richard III society members too.
What did you think of the documentary and/or book? Let’s chat in the comments!