Cold Case Reopened: The Princes in the Tower (9 page)

However, favour was not granted by Richard III for long. She was found to be plotting with Buckingham, Elizabeth Woodville, and her son. As a result a bill was passed against her, stripping her of all titles and properties. Richard, in an unusual act of clemency, actually passed the properties over to her husband Lord Stanley.
 

Margaret Beaufort certainly had a hand in Buckingham's failed rebellion, but the fact that her husband fought on Richard's side prevented further action against her. Margaret then continued her secret negotiations with Elizabeth Woodville regarding the potential marriage between her son and Elizabeth of York. At this point Stanley was rewarded by becoming Lord High Constable of England.

Certainly during Richard III's rule Margaret was constantly scheming. She knew that her son's time had come. The people of England (certainly in the south) were unhappy at Richard's rule. She knew it would not take much for them to support her son in an uprising. If Henry could not get the support he needed now, he would never get it.
 

However, despite the fact that the country was poised on the cusp of rebellion, another point could not have failed to cross Margaret's mind. If the princes were still alive in the Tower then even if Henry Tudor invaded and defeated Richard III, her son might still not be able to claim his throne. If Elizabeth of York was not the true heir of Edward IV then the marriage to her son would be worthless. Margaret knew that the marriage was critical. Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was weak, and in reality nonexistent. Henry could only claim kingship by right of conquest; the marriage to the heir of Edward IV would only reinforce his claim to the throne. Yet for Elizabeth of York to be the heir of Edward her brothers had to be dead. Could Margaret Beaufort be sure that the princes were dead?

One of the common theories that exist is that Margaret Beaufort was informed that the princes were dead by their murderer, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. We know that Margaret was clearly plotting with Buckingham prior to his rebellion. Their plan was simple: Buckingham would rebel in Wales and march into England. Henry Tudor would then simultaneously land with an invasion force from Brittany. Despite the fact that Buckingham himself had a greater claim than that of Henry Tudor, we are led to believe that he agreed to support the Tudor cause. If Buckingham was the murderer it would seem highly plausible that he would share news of their death with his conspirator. Margaret would surely have brought the matter of the princes up during the plotting, especially when they were discussing the marriage of Henry Tudor with Elizabeth of York.

Of course, what is likely is that Buckingham knew nothing more than Margaret Beaufort about the fate of the princes. Buckingham had left with Richard III on royal progress and he did not return to London after he left the king at Gloucester. After the failure of the rebellion Margaret Beaufort would have been left none the wiser if they lived or not.

However, after fighting by Richard III's side during Buckingham's rebellion, Lord Stanley was awarded a title previously held by Buckingham himself, Lord High Constable of England. In this position Stanley would have had considerable freedom. What is not clear is whether this position would have granted him unquestioned access to the Tower of London.

Stanley was clearly aware of his wife's plots. He would understand the value of being step-father to the King of England, but the Stanleys had a reputation of always attempting to appear on both sides of a battle. If Richard III had not sanctioned the murder of his nephews, then, understanding Stanley's character and his actions on Bosworth Field, it would seem highly improbable that he would take matters into his own hands in the Tower even if he did have access to the boys. Stanley would simply not have risked Richard's wrath should he ever have found out.

With her wealth and property removed from her, it seems unlikely that Margaret herself would have been able to arrange the murder of the princes without the assistance of her husband. As Stanley would have been extremely unwilling to commit to assistance of this nature, it seems that Margaret Beaufort could not have been responsible for the murder of the princes, at least during the years prior to Bosworth. And yet for a schemer in the league of Margaret Beaufort, would it be completely impossible?

As we know Richard III is the traditional face of the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Thomas More's book and the Shakespeare play it inspired have firmly ingrained that in the minds of people for hundreds of years.

On the face of it the case against Richard III looks extremely strong. Richard is indisputably responsible for the imprisonment of his nephews. It stands to reason that the same person who is doing the imprisoning is likely to be responsible for their deaths.

In modern child abduction cases we know for a fact that if murder follows an abduction, then that murder normally happens swiftly after the abduction has taken place. I can appreciate the circumstances are slightly different than most modern child abductions. In this case, the abduction was a political imprisonment pure and simple. However, it does appear to be extremely damning that the boys are never seen alive again just prior to Richard III's coronation and only a matter of days after Richard of Shrewsbury was sent to join his elder brother.

It is extremely easy to see how the boys would be considered a potential threat to Richard III's crown. Despite the fact that Titulus Regius was passed by Parliament the following year, the boys would still be considered by many in the country to be the legitimate heirs. Rebels did not care for Acts of Parliament. Men would fight for a cause they believed to be true, not what Members of Parliament had told them. Acts of Parliament themselves could easily be overturned by another Act of Parliament; it was all simply dependent on who was pulling the strings. However, one thing was certain: dead boys couldn't become king. It doesn't take a genius to see why Richard might resort to murder.

However, the same level of threat to Richard's crown could be suggested about the Earl of Warwick, Richard III's other nephew. Despite his father's attainer Warwick could still have been seen by many as having a greater claim to the throne than Richard. Yet, unlike Henry VII, who imprisoned Warwick in the Tower a matter of days after victory at Bosworth, Richard educated and clothed his nephew inside his own home with his own children. If Richard was so determined to wipe out the threat of rival claimants to the throne then why was Warwick not eliminated as well? A man who could order the murder of two of his nephews would surely wrap up the job and order the murder of a third. Why seemingly have two different policies for boys who were effectively in the same position?

Of course it could be said that Warwick did not have the formidable power of Elizabeth Woodville behind him. This would certainly have made him less of a threat than the princes. There are also suggestions that Warwick suffered from a learning disability. This is based on reports after his imprisonment at the hands of Henry VII. Of course, it could simply be that Warwick was driven mad during his extended incarceration in the Tower during the Tudor period, and there was no learning disability at all. However, if Warwick did have a learning disability then this would have meant he was far less likely to become the figurehead of any rebellion and he may well have had Richard III's pity.

But Richard's problems in terms of rival claimants did not stop with Warwick. In addition to the three male heirs that had precedence over Gloucester in the line of succession, there are the daughters of Edward IV (and Margaret, daughter of Clarence) to consider. Why were Richard's nieces not treated in the same way as their brothers and imprisoned in the Tower? This is probably easier to justify and explain than the issue of the treatment of Warwick. Even though Salic law did not exist in England, very few people were of the opinion that a woman could rule a country. There was likely to be little appetite for rebellion in support of a woman's cause. Therefore, the daughters of Edward were far less dangerous to Richard. However, there wasn't zero danger. This is why Richard kept the girls at court, and especially kept Elizabeth of York close at hand. Richard understood her immense value as a bride, which is why he plotted to marry her himself. Not only would a marriage to his brother's eldest daughter strengthen his own claim, but it would prevent another from marrying her and creating a new potential threat.

The most damning of all the evidence against Richard comes in the form of the discovery of the bodies under the stairwell in the Tower of London. The fact that this location resembles the location of the bodies described in More's book is almost enough to present in a court today. More tells us that his evidence was based upon the last confession of James Tyrell. Tyrell confessed to the murders of the princes under Richard's orders and the burial of the bodies under the stairwell. The fact that bodies of two young children were found there more than one hundred years later tells us that that confession was probably true. Or does it?

Actually, it tells us nothing more than the fact that More himself knew there were two bodies buried in that location. The “confession” of James Tyrell was never seen by anyone in writing, and there are certainly no copies of it available for historians to study today. In addition, the confession, if it did exist, was made prior to his execution for his role in a Yorkist uprising against Henry VII. Tyrell could have been tortured in order to extract such a confession. In addition, More's work also states that Tyrell said the bodies were only initially buried under the stairs, and were subsequently removed for a more dignified burial.

More was a writer of great ability and he was a fantastic storyteller, as his most famous work “Utopia” clearly shows us. If More's aim in his book was simply to blacken Richard's name and thus win favour with the Tudor monarchs then why couldn't More have simply invented the burial place of the princes?

More was also fond of elaborate jokes. We are all aware of how powerful he became and how close to Henry VIII he became. More would have been able to arrange many things at court. Could it be that More himself had arranged for unknown bodies to be buried in the location he described in his book as an elaborate joke that he and a few select individuals were in on? Or could he have arranged it in the hope that at some point in the future the bodies would be found and his work would then be granted greater credibility? Although the book is unfinished and was not published until well after his execution it is also possible that he may have given Henry VIII the manuscript to read. Could Henry VIII have spoken with More about the work and More explained that his description of the burial place of the children was a fiction? Could it then be the case that Henry VIII recalled this burial place when he was arranging for the “disappearance” of Henry Pole? Is it not possible that the tyrant thought that More's description of the burial place of the princes be a suitable resting place for Henry Pole and an unnamed other?

My mind is now wandering off into
Da Vinci Code
territory here. Regretfully, during complex cases investigating officers begin to see webs within webs within webs. They start making links that they would never have attempted at the start of the investigation. However, the tangled web I have just written does show that without the verification of James Tyrell's confession we cannot fully determine whether what More writes is fact or fiction.

Another principle issue with the credibility of Tyrell's confession is the fact that in More's book he goes on to state that the bodies were subsequently moved from the burial place under the stairs, but apparently Tyrell did not know the final resting place. If those bodies under the stairs were the boys, then why did Tyrell add that final statement in his confession? Did he believe that the bodies had been moved when in fact they hadn't, or does this add credibility to the idea of an elaborate practical joke to blacken Richard III's name at some unknown point in the future? This suggestion that the bodies were moved does make my mind drift back to the vault of Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville and those two unexplained coffins.

There is another major issue with credibility in More's work. He states that the murder took place on the 15
th
August. However, Tyrell was almost certainly still in York at that time.

The fact that More's work remained unfinished and unpublished at the time of his death brings doubts to my mind about the factual content within it. It is believed that More worked on the book between 1513 and 1519 yet he never finished it. Why? Some have suggested that he did not wish to cause a political backlash against him. Yet why would it? The work hardly paints Richard III in a flattering light. It is true that there is little mention of Henry VII in the book (historians suggest that More had a deep dislike of Henry Tudor). But the old king was dead and we are aware of how strong the bond was between Henry VIII and More. This failure to depict Henry Tudor as a knight in shining armour was surely not a reason not to finish the work. Could it have been that More had grown disillusioned with the fictions in his own work and that he determined that he should shelve the piece? Major authors all have half finished manuscripts littering up drawers in desks, so why should Tudor authors have been any different? There were obviously some still alive that remembered the events regarding Richard's seizing of the throne. Could it be that More knew some of his work could have been disproved by those who remembered the period and that was his reason for not finishing and publishing?

There are people who suggest that because Richard III did not display the princes after the rumours started hitting London that they were dead indicates that he had already murdered them. This is certainly one possibility for why Richard did not show the princes. However, it is just as easy to argue that there is no way any sane person would reveal the princes if they were alive. If I had taken the throne away from two boys a matter of months ago, there would be no way I would display them in front of the public who disliked me. This would simply be highlighting that I had stolen the throne and inviting rebellions in the princes' names. If the world did not know whether the princes were alive or dead then there was far less likelihood of rebellions occurring.