Talk:Princes in the Tower/Archive 1

U.S. Law irrelevant
The reference to the United States Supreme Court seems Anachronistic, Americo-centric and totally out of place. Mintguy 14:54 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

The statement that "in fact, such a promise was enforceable in many states of the U.S., and in some of them "breach of promise" to marry was a crime, until the late 20th century" seems similarly irrelevant. It should be replaced by some statement about mediaeval English law, but I know nothing about that subject myself, so I'll leave it for now. Does anyone else have any ideas? -- Oliver PEREIRA 23:44 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Who's the Americo-centric? What on EARTH has America, of all places, to do with an English medieval matter which occured centuries before the United States even existed? (206.45.135.229 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC))


 * It was a contributor who had a bit of a bee in her bonnet about this particular subject and who left the project some years ago. So don't worry about it! Deb (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Taken from..."?
What's all this "Taken from http://experts.about.com/e/p/pr/Princes_in_the_Tower.htm" all over the article? Quite apart from any question of style (WP:MOS and how to cite references etc), the about.com article says "Taken from Wikipedia" at the bottom. So it's an earlier version of this article. You can't use an early version of an article to reference a later version of an article. That would be silly :) Telsa (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I've added the relevant titles from the bibliography in the Richard III article. Deb 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the article
Reference should be made to Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck as well as other cases for the putative survival of the Princes, along with a redirect from "The Princes in the Tower."

(No doubt if the Borgias had been linked to England they would have been blamed too).

Jackiespeel 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Motive of John Howard
In "John Howard" under "Suspects" this article states that the younger murdered Prince was Duke of Norfolk in right of marriage. That is wrong. A man does not get his wife's honors. It's the other way around. Prince Richard's child wife was Duchess of Norfolk in right of marriage to HIM. When the Duke/Earl of Norfolk died, his daughter became Countess (female Earl) of Norfolk in her own right because the older title descended through females. But she could not become Duchess of Norfolk in her own right because the more recent title's descent excluded females. So, the title "Duke of Norfolk" became defunct, at the King's disposal. He gave it to his son Prince Richard, making him Duke of Norfolk IN HIS OWN RIGHT, a title granted from the King, not from being the son-in-law of the previous Duke of Norfolk nor from being the husband of the Countess of Norfolk. It is by being married to a male who is in his own right the Duke of Norfolk that the Countess of Norfolk becomes the Duchess of Norfolk. This is only a quibble about the error of using the language "in right of his ... bride", not a comment on the idea that motive arose from the wealth of the Norfolk EALRdom (not Dukedom), which Parliament, according to the Wikipedia article on Prince Richard's wife, diverted from her normal heirs to Richard and his family. 64.131.188.104 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Morton & More
This was contributed on 9th June. It is poorly written with numerous spelling and grammatical errors (some of which I have corrected) and has no references so I have moved it here in case anyone wants to edit into a more acceptable form.

"Thomas B Costeyn, the historian of Plantagenets writes that the story of Richard III's guilt came from a book written by Archbishop Morton and completed by Thomas More. That the name of that great martyr got associated with the writings gave credence to the story and Shakespeare copied it muddying all later histories. Morton was Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII, famous for Morton's Fork. This gentleman was a traitor to Richard III and was the Goebbels to Henry VII. He lists in his book seven charges against Richard III, six of whom were proved by Thomas Costeyn in his work to be true. So, Thomas Costeyn does not place any reliance on the charge that Richard III murdered the princes. Thomas Costeyn further notes two special things; between Richard III falling in battle, and Henry VII calling Parliament, there elapsed 92 days where the Tower of London was in control of Henry VII 's officers. Parliament requested Henry to marry Elizabeth of York which Henry finally acquiesced to after dilly dallying over two other matches. Soon after his marriage, he gave a general pardon on June 16 to Sir James Tyrrell. Generally, this is a standard document issued to scrub record when new chap enters service and would have gone unnoticed but for a singular fact, Henry VII 's state papers contain two General pardons to Sir James Tyrrell, one on June 16 1486 and another on July 16 1486. Furthermore, this was soon followed by Henry VII confining his mother-in-law Queen Elizabeth nee Woodville to "solitary confinement" without servants. Her manors were transferred to her daughter and then her son-in-law aka Henry VII. Sir James Tyrrell was then awarded honors and manors and sent to France as Constable of Henry's castles where he stayed for 14 years. In 1501, the last of Richard III's nephews Edmund Pole, Earl of Suffolk surprised Tyrrell and took over some castles. Tyrrell fled back to England and was beheaded for treason. The story of his confession was bandied about by a lay priest. This lay priest is also mentioned elsewhere. In Morton's history, he is the murderer of the children. But 19 years later, he is in Henry VII's service. Another mention must be made of William Slaughter, guardian of the princes on daily basis. He received 10 pounds twice from Henry VII. Henry VII was very parsiminous and the award he gave to Henry Cabot for discovering route to new world was self same ten pounds!!

Peter Warbeck looked like a Plantagenet prince and could have been escaped Richard Duke of York. Slaughter was dismissed from service when Warbeck proclaimed his rebellion in Europe. Even Tyrrell had on hearing Warbeck's proclamation, started negotiating with Yorkists like the Earl of Suffolk.

Finally the bones, the bones were identified to be two children, 58 inches and 54 inches in height, age equivalents might be 15 plus years and 11 plus years. Aka, if Edward V is the larger child then he would have died in 1486.

Henry Duke of Buckingham had a higher claim to throne than his partner in rebellion, Henry of Richmond. Henry Buckingham could be culprit too."

RGCorris (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckingham didn't make a bid for the throne! Why pretend that he did? What is more, it would make much more sense to have "restored" the "legitmate King" Edward V than back the more dubious claims of the last of the Lancastrians, Henry Tudor. Firstly, in 1483 there was no statement that Henry Tudor was going to marry Elizabeth of York, and thus win over the disaffected Yorkists. Henry Tudor was simply the last hope of the remaining Lancastrians to return to power, but was considered so minor as to not be a serious threat - and so it would have been had not the Yorkist faction been fatally split by Richard III's actions! So it isn't clear that Henry Tudor would have had more support than Buckingham in order for Buckingham to declare for him. Buckingham certainly wasn't willing to make his own claim to the throne, not in 1483 at any rate, and none of the Yorkists were willing to put forward a claim against Richard. So Buckingham threw in his lot with the one Pretender to the Crown at the time - Henry Tudor. It would, however, have made more sense to restore Edward V. Edward V had still not been declared illegitimate by Parliament (that was in 1484), and as a child, he wouldn't have posed a political challenge to Buckingham's power - whilst an enthroned Henry Tudor would have. I think it is fairly clear that a) Buckingham believed the Princes to be dead prior to his execution, otherwise he would have claimed to be acting in Edward V's name, not Henry Tudor's; b) Buckingham was either not responsible for the deaths, or if he was, he must have been acting on behalf of Richard III (either on Richard's orders, or at the very least to curry favour). It's hard to see how Buckingham would have benefited more from installing Henry Tudor in place of Edward V given that Richard had already removed the Woodville threat.

As for your "arguments" about the skeletons... The figure of 58 inches is 4ft 10"!  Even if the body in life would have been a couple of inches taller, that's only 5 foot tall, which is surely within the range of a 13 year old!  Particularly since Edward V conceivably could have inherited his father's height (Edward IV was 6ft 4"!). I'd hardly say that the skeleton “proves” that the boy must have died in 1486. There is an age range, and 15 is the upper limit for the larger skeleton. This leaves the possibility that Edward V could have been alive in 1486 (assuming it really is his remains), but it certainly doesn’t prove it. What we do know is that no one records seeing Edward V alive after the summer of 1483 – so where was he in the intervening 3 years? Locked in some airless cell?

Arguments
There are three arguments that may or may not prove what really happened to the princes in the tower. No one really knows what really happened to the two princes, but may think that their evil uncle Richard III was the murder so that he could have the throne to himself. Here are a few pointers that I found about the two princes The Princes in the Tower were the two sons of King Edward IV of England. • The eldest became Edward V when his father died in April 1483. • Six weeks later Richard, Duke of Gloucester, uncle of the two boys, declared himself King as Richard III, arguing that had not been properly married. • His nephews were at that time living in the royal apartments in the Tower of London where they were seen occasionally until October 1483. • After this they were never seen again. Their fate was a mystery at the time and has been ever since! ▪ In 1485 Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth and Henry Tudor became Henry VII. These are the three arguments: ▪ Did King Richard III murders his nephews to secure the throne for himself? ▪ Were they killed by the next King, Henry VII, who then tried to blame Richard III? ▪ could they in fact have survived? In this essay I am going to answer each of these three arguments and try to settle to one decision.

Did King Richard III murders his nephews to secure the throne for himself? Well maybe he did kill them for the throne himself, but there’s no saying that he didn’t want it. It was said that Richard III was saying to the princes’ mother that they should be helped out with a relative ad that he would help and support them through making decisions and that he would not let them down. Here are some pieces of evidence: Although murdering the Princes would be bad for Richard’s reputation, maybe he just panicked! Tudor historians said that Richard spent two years in his mother's belly, was born deformed and evil In 1998, a TV trial chaired by the Chief Justice of the USA found King Richard III not guilty of the murders.

Were they killed by the next King, Henry VII, who then tried to blame Richard III?

This special piece of information has some evidence to it as well Sir James Tyrell confessed to murdering the Princes on Richard III's orders by suffocating them. Source A: Cardinal John Morton, of King Richard’s greatest enemies, gave this account: "Sir James Tyrell [a close friend of Richard III] decided that they should be murdered in their beds. To carry out this task he appointed Miles Forest, an evil man who enjoyed murder ... about midnight (the innocent children lying in their beds) he came into the chamber with an accomplice, and suddenly wrapped them up in the bedclothes and pressed the featherbed and pillows so hard over their mouths, that within a while, smothered and stifled, their breath failing, they gave up to God their innocent souls into the joys of heaven, leaving to the tormentors their bodies dead in the bed...to bury them at the stair-foot, deep in the ground under a great heap of stones".

Or maybe Richard III was framed by the next upcoming king Henry VII so that Henry VII wouldn’t be hated when he becomes king and so that he would become king so he killed the two princes and then he blamed Richard III. Sir James Tyrell's confession is not trustworthy. He also claimed the Princes were smuggled abroad.

Information time: In 1674, workmen employed in demolishing a staircase within the Tower of London, leading to the chapel of the White Tower, made the discovery of the bones of two children in an elm chest, at around a depth of ten feet. They were originally thrown aside with some rubble until their significance as the possible bones of the two princes was recognised. A number of accounts survive relating to the discovery of these bones, the following account, written on evidence presented by John Knight, Chief Surgeon to Charles II, was published in 1677:- "Upon Friday the ... day of July, An. 1674 ...in order to the rebuilding of the several Offices in the Tower, and to clear the White Tower of all contiguous buildings, digging down the stairs which led from the King's Lodgings, to the chapel in the said Tower, about ten foot in the ground were found the bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest, which upon the survey were found proportionable to ages of those two brothers viz. about thirteen and eleven years. The skull of one bring entire, the other broken, as were indeed many of the other bones, also the chest, by the violence of the labourers, who....cast the rubbish and them away together, wherefore they were caused to sift the rubbish and by that means preserved all the bones. The circumstances of the story being considered and the same often discoursed with Sir Thomas Chichley, Master of the Ordinance, by whose industry the new buildings were then in carrying on, and by whom the matter was reported to the King.'' And… The Evidence behind the rumours The Croyland Chronicle, Dominic Mancini, and Philippe de Commines all state that the rumour of the princes' death was current in England by the end of 1483. In his summary of the events of 1483, Commines says quite categorically that Richard was responsible for the murder of the princes, but of course he had been present at the meeting of the Estates-General of France in January 1484, when the statement was taken at face value. The other two sources do not suggest who was responsible. Only Mancini's account, written in 1483, is truly contemporary, the other two having been written three and seven years later, respectively. 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. 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. If the princes were not already dead by the end of 1483, this of course removes any possibility that Buckingham, who was executed on 2 November 1483, could have murdered them. No discussion of this episode would be complete without mention of Sir James Tyrrell, the loyal servant of Richard III whose "confession" to having murdered the princes has always been taken with a grain of salt. It is mentioned by Tudor sources (which, naturally, must be treated with caution) as having taken place in 1502, under torture. A confession under torture would not nowadays be regarded as reliable, and Tyrrell was unable to say where the bodies of the princes were. In 1674, some workmen remodelling the Tower of London dug up a box containing two small human skeletons. They threw them on a rubbish heap, but some days or weeks later someone decided they might be the bones of the two princes, so they gathered them up and put some of them in an urn, which Charles II of England ordered interred in Westminster Abbey. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined and then replaced in the urn in the vault under the Abbey. It is not possible to say the sex of the skeletons. (One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one.)

Could they in fact have survived?

Infrapubic angle is greater than 90˚ in females and less than 90˚ in males. Pelvic inlet in males is more heart-shaped, while in females it is more round or oval. Greater sciatic notch narrower in males. Acetabulum in males faces more laterally, while it faces more anteriorly in females. Sacrum more triangular and shorter in females.[1] There are four main types of pelvis
 * Pelvic Bone female are large than males so there is a way of telling the sex of the bodies found in the Tower of Londom

Gynaecoid: Normal female pelvis, round with enlarged transverse diameter Android: Normal male pelvis, Heart shaped Anthropoid: Long anterior to posterior diameter Platypelloid: Long transverse diameter (Ucebaggie (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)).
 * Only ADULT male & female pelvic bones differ enough for certain identification chrisboote (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowadays there's an even more irrefutable possibility: DNA testing. Through mitochondrial DNA one could find wheteher there mother was a match to Elizabeth Woodfville (buried in St George Chapel, Windsor). Although I doubt one would get permission from the Crown for such testing as it involves disturbing multiple royal graves. -- fdewaele, 23 May 2012, 14:00 (CET).

Removed blurb about Edward's other children
Article contained a brief note comparing the Princes to Edward IV's other children and noting that Richard didn't find it necessary to do any harm to them. What the article didn't make clear was that Edward IV's other children were all girls. No woman had ever been officially recognized as Queen of England in her own right, the Empress Matilda having never been crowned. And in the event, the Lancastrians and others opposed to Richard didn't rally behind the oldest daughter, Katherine, but rather Henry Tudor, who had a far inferior claim but was in fact a man. So Richard probably didn't kill the daughters because he didn't see the need to. I tried to figure out a way to point out that Edward IV's other children were daughters, but instead I just deleted that comment. If we insert it back into the article it should be rephrased in such a way to make it clear that the Princes were Edward IV's only two sons and that no woman had ever reigned. Vidor (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Katherine who ? Edward's eldest daughter was Elizabeth RGCorris (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"arguments in controversy" section deleted
Besides being unsourced, this section is not relevant to the article. This is an article about the disappearance of the Princes--circumstances of the disapperance, suspects, evidence. etc. Material discussing the legitimacy of the Princes is not relevant. Such information belongs to the biographical entries on Edward IV, Richard III, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward V, and Richard Duke of York. Vidor (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you can say that the section is not relevant, or indeed how you can decide what the article is about. The article is not called "The disappearance of the Princes in the Tower", and it had to be created because the biographical entries on the main protagonists in the controversy were getting gunged up with hypotheses about what role they might or might not have played in the episode.  It was thought better to restrict these arguments to a single article - this one.  It may be that the section is badly-written or unsourced in parts, but that is not a reason to delete the whole thing. Deb (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I can say the section is irrelevant due to my ability to read. The Princes in the Tower...were the only sons of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville alive at the time of their father's death. They disappeared without a trace from the Tower of London in 1483. Both princes were declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament of 1483 known as Titulus Regius. Their uncle, Richard III, placed them both in the Tower of London  (then a royal residence) in 1483. There are reports of their early presence in the courtyards etc., but there are no records of them having been seen after the summer of 1483. Their fate remains disputed, and it is presumed that they either died or were killed there.  It's an article about the disappearance of the Princes.  You yourself write that "it had to be created because the biographical entries on the main protagonists in the controversy were getting gunged up with hypotheses about what role they might or might not have played in the episode.  It was thought better to restrict these arguments to a single article - this one."  The section deleted dealt not with the disappearance of the princes, but with the legitimacy of Edward IV's marriage and thus that of his children.  Whether or not Edward V and Duke Richard were legitimate is not relevant to the fact that they disappeared, the various hypotheses of their disappearance, and the finding of the bones that may or may not be them.  Also, while it's true that the article is not called "The disappearances of the Princes in the Tower", it doesn't have to be, because that isn't necessary.  It's The Princes in the Tower, from whence they disappeared, not "Sons of Edward IV".  I repeat, the material deleted would have a home in the Titulus Regius article, to be sure, as well as the bios of the various individuals affected by it.  But not here.  (And it still isn't sourced in any case.) Vidor (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be sarcastic. I suggest that I am as capable of reading as you are, and this is simply a difference of opinion.  To suggest putting it in the Titulus Regius article is not helpful - who on earth would expect to find it there? Deb (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't anyone expect to find it there? The argument is an argument about Edward IV's marriage and the legitimacy of his children.  Where better to put that information (once it's sourced, which it still isn't) than the article about the law passed by Richard's Parliament on the issue?  I would expect to find more condensed versions in the biographical articles on the persons concerned...Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward V, Richard of York, Richard III...with a "main article: Titulus Regius" redirect. Vidor (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, badly expressed on my part. Titulus Regius is a very obscure piece of legislation which was made the subject of an article by a long-departed contributor who was obsessed with litigation.  I don't think most people have ever heard of it or have any idea what it is, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone could summon up the enthusiasm to explore that avenue. But look through the history of the Edward IV of England and you'll find that some of this material was expelled from there as well, becuase it was spreading like Japanese Knotweed.  Deb (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that "Vidor" seems to be one of those weird cultists who believe everything the Tudor propagandists wrote and wants to suppress any alternative views. He also seems to think he can dictate what is appropriate in this article and how the title should be interpreted. RGCorris (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If "Vidor" is a "cultist" who "believes everything that a Tudor propagandist" wrote and "suppresses" alternative views, what does that make you RGCorris? Richard III seized his nephew's crown, and confined both Princes in the Tower - there is no dispute about it! He had at least as much motive as Henry Tudor in needing to remove them as a potential threat to his Kingship, and unlike Henry, he is definitely known to have had the Princes in his power during the last time they were known to be alive. The circumstantial evidence for Richard's guilt is much, MUCH stronger against Richard than Henry Tudor, since there is no record of the Princes being seen by anybody for 2 years prior to Henry's invasion (he had been out of the country for 14 years prior to that, and certainly wouldn't have had the clout to have had agents in the Tower doing his bidding). Henry Tudor could only have been guilty if the Princes were still alive after August 1485, and apart from impostors like Perkin Warbeck, there is no evidence of them being seen after the summer of 1483 (Henry Tudor would have had trouble winning any significant backers had there been). Certainly the murder of the Princes is one part of the Tudor case to damn Richard's memory and justify their seizure of the Throne - as is the claim Richard was a deformed hunchback etc. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. The fact that Henry IV was a usurper, and that the Earl of March and decedents of his sister had a better claim was certainly used as Yorkist propaganda, but that doesn't make it false does it? From what I can see, there is little to support the claim that Henry Tudor murdered the Princes other than suppositions of the Richard III camp who want to reverse the old Tudor line of "virtuous, goodly, peace bringing King Henry" defeating the "villainous, monstrous, evil child-killing Richard III" - and purely reversing it. So the Ricardians go about naming just about every prominent player in the 1480's as suspects, and would dearly love to put the blame on Henry Tudor, so the stigma would fall on the "evil man" who did away with their "beloved King of all Innocence". The trouble is that there is much less evidence to blame Henry Tudor than Richard. Ricardians keep saying “you weren’t there” and “there’s all this propaganda”, and “there is no evidence the Princes were even murdered much less killed by ‘Good King Richard’”, but then proceed on even less basis to blame Henry Tudor, or shadowy agents working on his behalf! It would be laughable really. All previous usurpers eventually found it necessary to eliminate the man they’d dethroned – not only their power, but their very lives depended on it. You can, sort of, make a case that Richard III probably felt he had no choice. You could say they died of “natural causes” in the Tower (possible I suppose), but to claim the “evidence” against Henry Tudor is as strong as that against Richard III is absolutely ridiculous.

Not Edward's Son?
I saw a program on TV a long while back that suggested that there was documented evidence of the King being in France at the time of conception, therefore Edward V truly was illegitimate. I couldn't see this anyway in the article? 78.145.76.143 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it was the programme suggesting that Edward IV was himself illegitimate and not the son of the Duke of York but that of an archer called Blaybourne. However, sexual slander was very common at this period and I don;t think there's any proof. 86.179.170.184 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mancini states that Edward IV's mother said that she would swear in court that she had committed adultery and that Edward was not her husband's son. The prayer books showing their immense distance at the time of conception would confirm this. Roibert Hulph III (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The earlier two are correct. It is an assertion about Edward IV, not his son. However I think the claim is doubtful. Looking at the dates when Richard Duke of York was supposedly away from his wife, Edward IV would still have only been about a week overdue (2 weeks or so overdue is still within the normal range of births). He certainly wouldn't have been "sickly" as an overdue child! That TV "documentary" was a bit of a sham really, and the claim is not given wide credence. Nor is there any evidence outside of the Shakespeare play to indicate that Richard III ever claimed his brother was illegitimate (and that play is as responsible as anything for Richard III's bad name).
 * Indeed, I don't think Edward V, his brother nor the other girl children's paternity was ever put in doubt, but it was Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage which was claimed to be bigamous (legally so through the act Titulus Regius) and thus making their children legal bastards and barred from the throne. -- fdewaele, 23 May 2012, 14:00 (CET)

Real question
To me, on the precious principle of Occam's razor, the so-called mystery is pretty open and shut. Richard III did it. He had the motive and the opportunity. He also had form - ie the death of Hastings etc.

The real mystery, I believe, is why Elizabeth Woodville released her second son Richard out of sanctuary, to be put in the Tower (and eventually killed). I don't think anyone has ever explained that adequately. That and an account of how the princes came to the Tower after the death of Edward IV should be mentioned in the article, because that account throws light on the motivations of the different actors in the drama. 122.176.207.38 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On well, if you think Richard was guilty, then of course he must have been. I don't suppose it is the ghost of Thomas More hiding behind that anonymity ? Perhaps if you studied the arguments you might come to a more informed opinion RGCorris (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly nobody but the Richard III fanboys believe that he didn't do it. Elizabeth's incredible blunder in giving up her younger son is inexplicable, and worthy of commentary in the bios of Elizabeth and Richard Duke of York--but outside the scope of this article. Vidor (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you demonstrate your lack of research into the question. RGCorris (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that we could use the IP's ramblings as a reliable source....All joking aside, the question isn't even "Who killed the Princes in the Tower?", as there is no evidence whatsoever that they were even killed. Frederick T (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No evidence Jimmy Hoffa was "killed" either, but I don't think too many doubt that he's dead! BOTH boys were never seen after the summer of 1483. At the very least they were put in close confinement and never saw the light of day until they died. The manner of their deaths, and precisely who killed them is a matter of dispute, and will probably never be known for certain, but I think we can be fairly sure they died, either violently, or due deliberate neglect. At least 3 other disposed kings "died" whilst in the custody of those who'd taken their power, all because they were potential threats. Why imagine that the Princes of the Tower are different?

U.S. Law Section Revisited
As previously discussed here, this section is of extremely dubious relevance. It's not even like the Supreme Court conducted a proper investigation; we're talking about a entertainment event put on by a theatrical group. I've deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbble (talk • contribs) 09:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Even WITH a proper investigation, what on earth has this to do with the USA, of all places? (204.112.67.155 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

All it could prove is that the existing evidence wouldn't be sufficient to convict Richard III of murder, as all the evidence against him is circumstantial. We're talking about something that happened 500 years ago, that would never have been documented in any case, and there are certainly no eyewitnesses alive to testify. However I notice his partisans still try to convict Henry Tudor of the murder (or insinuate it at least) on much weaker circumstantial evidence. If Henry VII had motive to kill the boys, so did Richard, and they disappeared during Richard's reign, not Henry's.

Small details plus
In error. For "Margaret" please read "Elizabeth".AT Kunene (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"First" Duke of York?
In the introduction, the younger boy's title says "Richard of Shrewsbury, "First" Duke of York" This must be a mistake.--87.188.220.32 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. See article on Duke_of_York.  The title was recreated for him. Deb (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct; when Edward of York became Edward IV, all of his titles merged with the crown; therefore, when his son was made Duke of York, the title was recreated as being separate from the crown. This happens quite often in the English peerage. 69.42.36.162 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

"Richard did it"?
"Although this issue has generated, and continues to generate, a good deal of debate, the view of most professional historians is that Richard did it."

I would like a comparison showing how many professional historians believe that, versus how many believe we do not have enough evidence to make more than an educated guess. I would also like more explanation on the "if the recovered bones were the princes, they died before Bosworth" part that was added in the same edit. DanielCristofani 13:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Or even the names of a few who have come down on one side of the other. There seem to be a number of overlapping articles in Wikipedia which cover this topic. The Richard III of England article has quite a reference list and notes fiction such as Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time book which I think may have done a lot to raise questions about Richard's involvement. (I have that book and can give it a quick skim to see which sources she uses.) But I think perhaps going through some of the reference list on the main Richard page would be useful to see who claims and suggests what.


 * Whilst I'm here, some justification for the fifth "suspect" would be worth adding, because it looks very strange to me. Failing that, should it even stay? The entire sentence is Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort, as Henry Stafford visited the Beaufort Castle earlier that year, and was possibly bribed to kill the princes. My first thought on reading it was that it meant that she visited the place as Henry Stafford, but then sanity returned. Seriously, though: what relation are the two to each other and why does the possibility that he killed them mean that she is a suspect?


 * --Telsa 09:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Richard did it" also sounds a bit informal to me. This statement also seems a bit out of place in this section of the article. Fenoxielo 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * in the book "the Hollow Crown" by Geoffrey Richardson he gives compelling arguements that John Morton, Bishop of Ely, Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal of the Church of Rome and Chancellor of England was the one who instigated the death of the princes, part of the evidence is that the accusation against Richard III is based on the work of Thomas More, problem is that Thomas More was the pupil of John Moreton and also a staunch Lancastrian ally. paladineagle 03:41, 15 April 2006 {UTC}


 * Good. Add him to the "suspects" section, with a summary of the arguments, then.


 * Responding to TELSA RE the relation of Henry Stafford Duke of Buckingham to Margaret Beaufort. This is something that a lot of people miss.   Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort was the Duke of Buckingham's aunt by marriage (she married his father's brother Henry) and his 1st cousin once removed (his mother, another Margaret Beaufort, was her 1st cousin).  With all the intermarrying of noble families at the time these facts get missed.  People have often wondered why in the world the Duke of Buckingham would support Henry Tudor's invasion, but they are ignoring their family ties.  69.42.36.162 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Problem with time chronology in last passage
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. It is also not possible since in the last sentance of the passage it's said that Buckingham was executed on 2 November 1483 (after his failed rebelion little bit earlier).

If someone can explain it well, and if 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) 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - it is known that the rumour was rife in France by the beginning of 1484. I think that the rumour was probably current in Europe (where Henry Tudor was invading from) before it was generally known in England.  However, the article needs to make it clearer which sources are the basis of which argument. Deb (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if the "rumours" were around during Richard III's reign, he would have had good reason to show the boys to the public to dispell them, and the claims of Henry Tudor. Henry VII did the same when Lambert Simnel claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, by taking the actual Earl of Warwick out of the Tower, proving Simnel was an imposter. The fact that Edward V and his brother were never so displayed indicates that they were certainly dead prior to the Battle of Bosworth, and probably before the end 1483. Remember that Richard's life was at stake by seizing the crown. If enough people rallied to his nephews' cause, he would have been imprisoned in the Tower and executed for treason. He would never have made a bid for the throne if he weren't willing to act as ruthlessly as necessary to hold the crown as the prize for failure was death, for both him and his son and heir! I don't know why this is "contraversial" other than the fact that the Tudors used his murder of his brother's children (and Henry VIII's uncles) to blacken his name, and help justify Henry Tudor's seizure of the crown. But just because they used it in their own propaganda efforts doesn't make it untrue! Indeed, the best propaganda is always grounded in fact.

Small details
At the time of Bosworth Richard III was 33 and Thomas More was eight years of age. He probably never met Richard but may well have picked up information from people still alive who had known Richard and who were less reticent in speech with a only young child in the room.

In Mores notes he mentions " Edward was sickly" which means that he may have died of a now unknown cause. If this was indeed resonably well known, then the reasons for the various impersonators all claiming to be Richard, Duke of York become plausible.

More obscure are the reasons for various people coaching the impersonators to pretend to be Richard.

I don't think Margaret had much choice in surrendering her two sons from sanctuary. A king as ruthless as Richard III would simply have ordered his guards to forcibly remove both boys into the Tower.

Mancini was the Ambassador form a neutral country and part of the job is to gather information. Who knows what other lurid "information" Mancinin may have gathered in exchange for a few drinks in the various taverns around the Tower of London.

The only possible answer is still "Not Proven"AT Kunene (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RE "I don't think Margaret had much choice in surrendering her two sons from sanctuary. A king as ruthless as Richard III would simply have ordered his guards to forcibly remove both boys into the Tower."

First, I believe you are referring to Elizabeth Woodville, not Margaret, whoever she was. Second, only the younger son, Richard, was in sanctuary. You may be getting this confused with the fact that Edward V was born in sanctuary in 1471 when the Royal Family took refuge as Lancaster invaded to restore Henry VI briefly to the throne.

Third, sanctuary was an important concept in this time period. Even murderer's who reached sanctuary could not be forcibly removed. Years previously Edward IV had forcibly removed several Lancastrians from sanctuary where they had fled after battle. He ordered them dragged out and executed. He was highly criticized by Church and populace alike for violating sanctuary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.41.174 (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture
The reference to 'The Kingmaker' play contains an unnecessary spoiler. Can it be replaced with something like 'the Doctor visits the court of Richard III in an attempt to solve the mystery.'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The possiblities
The various possibilities include:
 * Richard III ordered their deaths (as they were potential foci of opposition).
 * The Duke of Buckingham (to further his claims/eliminate rivals)
 * Henry Tudor (ie before he became king)
 * Henry VII (after he became king)
 * 'One or several' of the persons in the Tower (possibly trying to second-guess what is required)
 * They died of natural causes in the Tower (but the information was not released as Richard knew he would be blamed).
 * One or both escaped (hence Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, Richard's 'Third bastard', and several works of fiction)

There are arguments for or against the above - and probably a few fantasy versions (they escape on the Tardis etc).

And can I mention the Richard III wiki - for those wishing to go further into the subject. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Deb (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The list or the wiki (there are also wikis - not mine - concerning the Wars of the Roses and Henry VIII). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Literature Non-Fiction Section
The book by Peter A. Hancock (Richard III and the Murder in the Tower) is not about the alleged murder of the "princes in the tower". It's about Richard's execution of Hastings and what led to it. Although it's a very good book, it really belongs under the R3 article rather than here. Should I move it? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - I would put it into Cultural depictions of Richard III of England. Deb (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a scholarly non-fiction book. I don't think it would be appropriate there.  Probably best to put it under the Hastings article.  Thoughts?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Deb (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Deduction
My inference from the article, combined with general knowledge, is that either the author of the Anglican Church's Book of Common Prayer was misled and/or misleading, or the skeletons buried in Westminster Abbey in the name of the Princes are impostors.--87.86.123.67 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean the unnamed lead coffins that are referred to in the article? Deb (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Those are in the vault at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. I was referring to the chicken and velvet medley in the Abbey urn, and neglected to put the restored Charles in the same category as More.--91.198.180.76 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I'm with you now. I don't think many people believe that they really are the Princes' bones, but how much does this matter?  It's a kind of "tradition" and I daresay that a scientific investigation will one day be carried out, but I doubt that it'll prove anything one way or the other - mind you, I said that about digging for the bones of Richard III and that turned out quite differently from what I expected.Deb (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If, as you suggest, a forensic examination were undertaken, it would indicate a certain distance from inside knowledge either of the first in the line of restored monarchs or of the author of the traditional Church of England prayer book. As either has the potential to slightly embarrass either institution, it seems unlikely the Queen would allow it.--46.65.8.106 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the monarch who, according to the current version of the article, holds the prerogative as to whether or not royal/'royal' remains are disinterred for identification (citation required?) seems unlikely to promote the identification of members of a line whose claim to the throne was welshed by that of her own.--87.86.123.67 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that intended as a racist comment? Deb (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it was or not, it is an incorrect use of the word, which means "Fail to honour (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement)." I put it down to ignorance rather than racism. RGCorris (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC).
 * The primary aim is to convey meaning accurately and succinctly. Either or both of the above contributors were, and remain, at liberty to suggest terminology less sensitive/'ignorant,' but neither did so, nor have done so to date. Which begs the question, is their/your motive primarily to reprimand, to correct, or to contribute?--91.198.180.76 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked the question because I could not understand what you were driving at. Was it intended as a pun?  Did you really not know the meaning of the word?  Did you mean something different?  If so, what?  Are you even the same person or some other anon contributor?  Deb (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a bit punny. The use of the word as defined by RGCorris is unacceptably racist, and narrow. It is a non-word or a 'from the shadows word' - if it is to be used at all, in enlightened company, it must not be used with that meaning. When you look at possible alternatives I could have used, such as 'seize' or 'grab,' they are arguably even less ambiguous, and more loaded. You asked me my intended meaning with the word, indicating a certain uncertainty, which was part of my intention. With 'seize' or 'grab' there is no uncertainty, no ambiguity, no room for doubt as to where the poster stands in the matter.--91.198.180.76 (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do'h ! I was quoting the dictionary definition. You seem to think it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Are you a fan of Lewis Carroll by any chance ? RGCorris (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. But: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am9YXCimpe1XtjLICXiZjxIgBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20130315084500AAoAs4I --46.65.8.42 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What started off as a mildly interesting discussion has now become pointless. 'Bye! Deb (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - the prolepsis doesn't seem to have worked.--46.65.8.42 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sovereign 'castrating phallus?'
Roheim equated the crowned monarch with a 'castrating phallus.' Could the British Crown's refusal to disinter the lads' purported remains for DNA analysis, before it's too late, be the defining example of this?--91.198.180.76 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus that they were murdered
A recent spurious edit added that there was consensus that they were murdered.... Clearly not when we have a section about "escape claims", in which historians including Horace Walpole state they believe one of the boys survived. If even one person disagrees - there is no consensus. (and there is widespread disagreements about if/how/when the boys died etc.)

This links into a wider fear I have for this article, because there seems to be a small minority of editors who have a fixed view of events and quickly delete anything that doesn't fit into their narrow field of view. The last deletion deleted all mention any survival, calling the views of those historians such as Horace Walpole "garbage". In a subject such as this where there is no "hard evidence", EVERYTHING is historians theorising based on secondary fact. It is only a theory that they were murdered; there is no proof either way -it is based on the secondary evidence that they disappeared. It is only a theory that Edward may have died of natural causes; there is no proof either way -it is based on the secondary evidence that he was being seen by a doctor. It is only a theory that one or both survived; there is no proof either way -it is a conclusion some historians have reached based on secondary evidence just the same. All are just as valid theories as any others, provided they are backed up by references. The section suggesting one or more of the boys may have survived (the section deleted) is referenced with sources in published books by noted historians (including Horace Walpole, John Wagner's 'Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses', David Baldwin's 'The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York' and John Heneage Jesse's 1862 'Memoirs of King Richard the Third and some of his contemporaries'), also the University of Leicester website and the BBC History Website. This is in quite stark contrast to the section which details theories surrounding their deaths, which has only two references. One to a book by Alison Weir (best known as a writer of fiction); the other is a deadlink to a WordPress site created by the American Branch of the Richard III Society. And in relation to the above complaint about the usage of a singular reference per paragraph; this is all that the "deaths" section has too (and it is common practice inline with GA/FA criteria to only reference at the end of the paragraph if it all references to one place). Neither of those used in the death section strikes me as the most reliable of sources. The deadlink Wordpress site is most defiantly not. The Alison Weir book fills me with doubts as it is a fairly long paragraph but is referenced to a single page within said book. I think its only supposed to be the last line referenced to Weir (the date she suggests as a potential murder date); the rest of that paragraph is thus unreferenced.

At the end of the day, the deletion of fully referenced and valid material because it does not fit your select belief of the events is not acceptable. Had an IP user done it, no doubt they would have been reported for vandalism. In dismissing such noted historians as Walpole as "garbage", and trying distort history and spread a lie of "consensus", when there is anything but consensus about the mystery of the princes in the tower, the user in question has really shown themselves as someone who's concern is not in improving the quality of the article.

I have come to the talkpage first as a good faith jesture in line with Wikipedia's policy of civility, but I will warn that any future attacks to the article or attempts to distort the facts, delete valid referenced information or add in false, unreferenced spurious claims such as that of consensus about a murder, will not be taken in such good faith.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is not the case. "Consensus" means general agreement, not unanimity.

I would have to disagree that Alison Weir is "best known as a writer of fiction" - she is definitely better known as a writer of non-fiction.

Surely the point is that Horace Walpole was not a "historian" in any modern sense of the word?


 * I have added a few comments above. You are correct in saying that "it is common practice to only reference at the end of the paragraph if it all references to one place".  However, it is not acceptable to make multiple controversial statements in successive sentences without giving a reference for each one.  I think that, in this case, you are misunderstanding what constitutes good practice here.


 * I'm trying to think of some examples that could help. For example, let's suppose that David Baldwin had said "Many people believe Richard III was a good king."  That is not controversial, so, although it should be referenced, it's not likely to cause a problem.  If, on the other hand, he had said, "Most people believe that Richard III was a good king", that would be potentially controversial and he would be expected to come up with evidence for the statement.  However, in television programmes, experts (whether they are really experts or not) are not expected to back up their statements with evidence, whereas in written publications, they are.  Does that help you to see where I'm coming from? Deb (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My problem is not really with yourself. Every issue raised by yourself has been technical, and you have shown yourself to be a adept wikipedian: discussing issues, and remaining civil. My problem is with others who without discussion delete and alter things in order to distort and change the article to suit their belief of what happened. Should we all ignore noted and respected historians because a faceless nobody on the internet doesn't like what they're saying? I think not.
 * The whole reason there is so much historical discussion about the Princes in the tower is because it is a mystery what happened to them. Many historians put forward different scenarios in books and journals; but to say there is consensus or anything resembling general agreement about the prince's disappearance and fate, is fanciful. It may be hard for those who have not studied history to understand that there is no such thing as "truth" and "fact" in history; its basically all theory. But the Princes in the Tower mystery is the perfect example to show this. The whole mystery is that no one knows what happened to them. We "know" two boys went into the tower - EVERYTHING else is theory put forward by historians based on the secondary evidence. None is more correct than any other and (with no intention to DNA test the bodies in Westminster Abbey; or open the unatributed coffins in Windsor Chapel) nothing can yet be proved right.
 * As humans, we often pick sides. Some may have a certain theory they strongly believe is correct; but that is no excuse for censorship. People cannot remove other theories which they disagree with -they are just as valid as any other. And lets just remember; all those deleted were fully referenced with reliable sources.
 * The reason the story of the princes has fascinated for generations and provoked (and still provokes) new theories and new books, is because nobody knows that happened to them. For someone to come to wikipedia and change the article to say they were defiantly murdered and everyone agrees about it, is frankly laughable.
 * I'm not going to get dragged into long drawn out back and forths about this. Censorship, the deletion of valued and valid referenced material and the distortion of historical articles to present uncited theories as universally agreed fact, all have no place on wikipedia.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think that most of the people who edit this article regularly, whether or not they have a personal opinion of what happened, do so without a recognition of the points you make above. What is at issue is the neutrality of the article's wording, and discoveries such as the recent exhumation of Richard III's body tend to result in a spate of ill-informed additions and amendments to articles on this and related topics.  Most people, ie. non-experts who have not done any independent research, tend to believe what they read in newspapers and hear on television. Sometimes this material is reliable; sometimes it isn't.  I have struggled for many years now to keep articles such as this one and Richard III of England on an even keel, so I am sorry if I reacted in a manner that seemed OTT to your edits, but it is very important to me, as to most people with a serious interest in history (as opposed to those who read "The White Queen" and assume that every word of it is true, and I don't include you in that category) that material shouldn't be added unless it is properly sourced.  In the course of this, I've learned a lot myself that I didn't already know, and I don't entirely discount the theory that Margaret Beaufort could have had a hand in the princes' murder.  However, it seemed to me to be unreasonable to extend the paragraph about her candidacy so that it was longer and more detailed than any of the other "suspects", particularly when this supposition was entirely based on theories by one or two people who have yet to establish their reputations as historians.Deb (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits "quoting" Philippa Gregory
The material added as a result of Philippa Gregory's recent documentary is subjective and does not quote reliable sources so I have removed it. You need to add citations for every potentially controversial statement, not just a blanket reference at the end of the paragraph. I saw the programme and some of the statements attributed to Gregory were not made at all; others were clearly put forward only as her opinion. Deb (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. Very much so. History Lunatic (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

Baldwin (again)
I've just been looking at the webnpage that is used repeatedly as a serious source, "The White Queen - What happened to the Princes in the Tower?". I am worried about several statements attributed to it. Baldwin says


 * The only certain thing we know about the boys, after they were lodged in the Tower, is that the older boy Edward V was receiving visits from his doctor. He could have died from his illness or from misguided attempts to cure him, but there is no indication that his younger brother Richard was also receiving medical treatment.

The assertion is repeated in the article. Of course being "visited by a doctor" does not mean that you are ill (it would hardly be surprising if the young princes's health was checked out). Baldwin states that Edward was visited and then goes on to assume on the basis of nothing that Edward must have had a life-threatening illness. This "visited by a doctor" claim crops up a lot in Ricardian literature, but I've not been able to find what evidence it's actually based on. At this time, the word "doctor" could, of course, refer to a scholar or cleric. None of the historical literature I've looked at mentions this doctor. And if Edward died of natural causes why on earth would Richard conceal the fact? I don't have access to Weir. Does she say what this claim is based on?


 * Later pretenders claimed to be the younger Prince. This would suggest that there was a popular assumption that Richard was still living, but that Edward, the elder boy and a more obvious candidate for impersonation, was dead.

The current article uses this to support the sentence: "Historian David Baldwin suggests that contemporaries believed Edward had died (either of an illness or as the result of attempts to cure him) and that Richard was still alive." In fact Baldwin says no such thing. He does not say that contemporaries believed Edward had died of an illness or attempts to cure him. He does not even say that he believes that. What he does say is that the impersonators "would suggest that there was a popular assumption that Richard was still living" but no evidence is provided that there was any such "popular assumption" and indeed we have Mancini saying that the popular assumption was that they were dead, and several major scholars also saying that's what the popular assumption was (or quickly became, sometime around September).


 * Elizabeth could have found someone to take the place of the younger Prince, although the successful substitution of a 'common' youth would suppose some naivety on the part of the nobles and bishops who arranged his transfer to the Tower. Perhaps neither Richard III nor Henry VII would have wanted to incur the disgrace that killing him would have brought upon them. Hiding him, changing his identity, would have given all the parties a degree of satisfaction and made their future relationships workable.

Obviously this is a reference to the plotline of the TV series, which Baldwin clearly has to mention, but seems to find implausible ("suppose some naivety on the part of the nobles and bishops"). The second sentence, however, seems to have no logical connection to the first. The last sentence is completely illogical. If they were worried about "disgrace" why would they conceal him and leave everybody to assume he was dead? From a public point of view, that's the same thing. Again, I can find no support for such an argument in writings by standard historians of the era. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I too was puzzled by this mention of the doctor, which I had never heard before. There was a Dr Lewis, who appears in The White Queen but is nevertheless known to have existed and been used by Margaret Beaufort as a go-between.  However, this doesn't appear to relate to him.  I'm not sure that Baldwin's book is, on its own, a strong enough supporting citation for this.  Does he quote his source in the book?  You seem to be familiar with it. Deb (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The passages I'm quoting are from the BBC website, which, IMO, should not be used as a source at all. I strongly suspect that this refers to John Argentine, the last known person to see the Princes alive. He certainly visited them, and he certainly was a physician. He is the source who reported that Edward was depressed and fearful for his life. There is nothing in his reported comments to suggest that Edward was ill. This seems to be Chinese Whispers: he was visited by a "doctor" ∴ he was ill; ∴ he died of illness. The actual source astoundingly turns out to assert the opposite of what Baldwin says. A witness who says that Edward was convinced he was about to be murdered becomes evidence that he was suffering from a natural illness, even though he says no such thing! And of course, Argentine was one of the attendants of the prince who was made to leave when his brother Richard was secured, so the idea that he was visiting in order to treat an illness is a blatant misrepresentation of the sources. He was simply one of the royal attendants. The false assertion that, unlike Edward, Richard was not "receiving medical treatment" is a deeply misleading extrapolation from the simple fact that all the royal attendants, incluing his doctor, were withdrawn as soon as Richard arrived. Paul B (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Never thought of him. It does sound rather a likely explanation.  I wish we had a hotline to Baldwin so we could find out what he was thinking of. Deb (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not have Baldwin at all, or rather not the stuff on the BBC webite. I think it's far too low a quality source. Baldwin's views are given way too much prominence given that they do not represent mainstream scholarly opinion. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So would I, but it is difficult to see how to justify that approach - other than having some kind of vote on it. Deb (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any dispute that webpages from broadcasters marketing a drama are not the best sources for articles on history. And of course the general rule is that we present the consensus of scholarship as the principal POV within an article. It's not always easy to determine what that is, though there are several tertiary sources that say there is a consensus:"The consensus of contemporaries was that Richard had his chief rivals murdered and their bodies secretly buried in the Tower precincts. Many theories and much historical speculation... have attended the princes’ disappearance, but most historians agree that the probable fate of the princes was death and that it came at the hands of their uncle, Richard III." (Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England, 1272-1485). Horrox, Rosemary. "Edward V of England". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. John A. Wagner, Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses, "Edward... was deposed and likely murdered by his uncle Richard III" (p85) Paul B (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The reality is that most historians agree the likeliest suspect is Richard, operating through either Tyrell or Buckingham. There are other theories, of course, and it is quite true we cannot know for definite what happened. However, according to Wikipedia's own rules, it should reflect that reality. That is what my draft tried to do, although I didn't have my authorities with me to cite at the time (being on holiday) and now I'm back at work, I have very little time for the heavy-duty editing required. I think more material should be incorporated from Desmond Seward (although I'm a little uncomfortable with some of his very partisan and in my view less than brilliantly sourced conclusions, particularly around the fates of Henry VI and Edward Prince of Wales) and Michael Hicks in particular, with good helpings from Horrox and Weir, not to mention Baldwin's book rather than his BBC article. There's also a fairly recent, more sympathetic biography of Richard by Carson that might be worth mining. However, whenever I try to do anything, Rushton reverts it to this version, which is frankly not only BPOV and pushes divers fringe theories but also heavily dependent on less than perfect sources, which frankly doesn't encourage me to expend precious time editing it. I am absolutely not suggesting that the alternative theories be removed - half the fun of this topic is debating the evidence until you come to the conclusion and exploring all the options - but I do think for an encyclopaedia they should be moved to a less prominent position, which is again what I had tried to do. I had left Tudor and Buckingham as main suspects because they have been put forward by historians, although Tudor seems to have had little motive or opportunity (the idea that it gave him a plausible claim to the crown is to read backwards from 1484 - even with their disappearance, Edward of Warwick, the de la Pole brothers, Richard and his son, Buckingham and his son, Northumberland and his sons and the King of Portugal all had better claims to the throne than Henry - he was a very surprising choice by the rebels) while I personally (I know this is not fact or particularly relevant) find it very difficult to believe Buckingham would have taken such a drastic step on his own initiative, although I can see the logic of the arguments that it was the deaths of the Princes - whichever one of Richard or Buckingham ordered it - that led to their falling out. Similarly, although I left in the 'escape' claims, there is very little hard evidence that anyone took claims of Richard of Shrewsbury's survival seriously, although some found it politically convenient to do so. Ann Wroe's Warbeck might be a good one to bring in on that. Hope that is of some help/interest in advancing the article.31.54.9.127 (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Final thought before I have to carry on with my own work - I used the ODNB partly because it was the best option I had at the time and I thought trying to add more scholarship over and above Rushton's work was pretty urgent, but also because it is freely available to anyone with a library card at a British municipal library. It does not require a subscription per se.31.54.9.127 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I can't see anything wrong with using ODNB. It is, at the very least, an independent reference whose content is extensively reviewed, whereas all books, whether fiction or non-fiction, are to some extent the view of one individual. Deb (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

BPOV Edits on Margaret Beaufort.
I have had several edits reverted on this subject, which I am not happy about. However, to reduce it to the essentials:

1) There is no evidence to implicate Margaret Beaufort in the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest she could not have been, especially the fact that she had no access to them but more pertinently due to the fact that the likeliest beneficiary of such a move would be Richard III. Philippa Gregory is not an historian and her standard of historical research is pathetic. She admits to reading about 20 books on a subject before writing on it, about the level required of a competent undergraduate at a mid-ranking UK university for a routine essay. That her weird ideas on this subject, which owe more to her vehement anti-Catholicism than to reasoning or subject knowledge, are given prominence is a joke. That a documentary by the BBC - an organisation with a highly coloured and frankly poor costume drama promoting that theory to advertise - is considered reliable on this point is an even bigger joke. The point of wikipedia is to promote the scholarly consensus. The BBC is not scholarly.

2) On that subject, this article does not represent the scholarly consensus, is not factually accurate, and is full of weasel words. The implication that Horace Walpole backed Warbeck's claims is not balanced by the recognition that he later recanted them. Like it or not, the scholarly consensus is that they were murdered by their uncle. He was in charge of them, his men were guarding them, and he had most to gain by their removal. As long as they lived, they would be a threat to him. Although Henry Tudor subsequently became an alternative candidate, that was evidently a last-minute compromise when it became clear the Princes were no longer available. It seems unlikely (admittedly it is not impossible) that anybody could have predicted it. Indeed, Buckingham himself or Edward of Warwick would have been more likely alternatives.

3) I should point out that the citations on James Tyrell refer to all facts in the section. I did not repeat them for every sentence because I find it tedious.

4) Rushton2010 accuses me of vandalism. Although I have to post anonymously because my employer does not like people who interact with Wikipedia, I am a professional historian. I did not vandalise this article, I improved it. Rushton2010's edits have severely damaged it and unfortunately do history and historical knowledge a major disservice. Every time somebody does something like this, I have to waste time undoing the damage in subsequent lessons. That's tedious and unhelpful, and upsets my students. Finding out that everything you knew is a pack of tendentious forgeries is very disheartening. I wish such irresponsible editors would consider this before making such foolish claims.

As a result, I have reverted Rushton2010's reverts and hope this time s/he has the good grace to let them stand. If the Richard III society have trouble living with history, could they please stick to their own website?31.54.9.127 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My motives are only the neutrality and varifiablity of the article. I appologise if you felt I was being harsh- we have a high rate of IP vandalism on wikipedia and there have been numerous attempts on this article to try and present a singular incorrect view that they were defiantly murdered and that all historians agree- neither of which are true. There is no clear consensus within historians about the events of the Princes in the tower -you only have to read the article to see that; countless different historians suggesting 1 died, both died, 1 escaped, both escaped, 1 died of natural causes, both murdered by so and so etc. etc. etc.. It is a mystery and there is no primary evidence; everything surrounding it is based solely on historians theories based on secondary evidence. So your claims there no evidence to support Beaufort is frankly laughable because there's no proof anyone did it or even that they were murdered. And you're obviously not familiar with Wikpedia and it's policies so I'll inform you. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research -everything has to be expressly stated by a source; sources are not allowed to be interpreted or two sources synthesised. Wikipedia goes for "Verifiability, not Truth"; basically it doesn't matter you believe it not to be true, so long as it has a reference. Articles must have a Neutral Point of View; which means when things are opinion they have to be presented as such. In short: "Several individuals, Henry Tudor, Richard's allies, the Dukes of Buckingham and Norfolk, and even Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, have all been touted as alternative 'murderers'" "There is no proof that the Princes were killed by anyone" (David Baldwin, What happened to the Princes in the Tower?, BBC History: 2013).
 * you might not like the fact Margaret Beaufort is touted as a candidate, but its backed up by a references.
 * Everything around the princes in the tower is historical theorising. Presenting one historians views as a consensus or as fact is a breach of neutral point of view. Everything is historians opinions and theories based on indirect evidence and must be presented as such.
 * and sorry, faceless people on the internet claiming to be "professional historians" (how many times have we heard that one) hold no weight at all here. Wikipedia is open to be edited by everyone and your theories and original research claims hold no weight here: wikipedia forbids original research and everything goes off what can be referenced. Conflict of Interest editing is also forbidden.

Your attempts to skew the articles to support one view whilst ignoring all other sources is not inline with wikipedia's policies and against neutral point of view. You may not like what it says or even dispute it, but it is backed up by references and inline with wikipedia's policies. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And to be fair, I didn't blanket delete your addition. I salvaged what I could, improved the neutrality and fixed the awful reference style. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rushton, the fact remains that you have been promoting highly marginal views by "historians" writing populist literature as if they were serious scholarship. I have not become involved for a while because I do not want to get into tedious edit wars, but you keep quoting David Baldwin as if he were some major historian of the medieval era. He isn't. His books are published by The History Press, which is a publisher of local history generally used by amateurs (as is Amberley, the other press he publishes with). I know of no evidence that Baldwin is considered to be a serious figure in the scholarship of the Yorkist period. His other notable "contribution" to history is also a piece of populist tabloid-history "identifying" Robin Hood. This is the kind of thing that gets you stories in local newspapers, but it isn't serious. This great authority apprently thinks that "Richard Plantagenet" was the Duke of York. Why would Richard, Duke of York claim to be the son of Richard III? I don't think any serious historian of the period thinks it is remotely likely that Margaret Beaufort either could or would have killed the princes. They were completely guarded by Richard's men. The scene in the TV series, in which he rushes over to the Tower to find them mysteriously missing, is laughable. Your edits have turned this article into an advertisement for what is wrong with Wikipedia when it comes to coverage of history - love of fringe fantasies and populist detective-story style speculations that have little relation to real history. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I should add that your spouting of wikipedia policy about Original Research etc is really rather absurd. As far as I can see the IPs ediots were solidly supported by scholarship. Paul B (talk)


 * What scene? Are you actually suggesting people are adding things based on what they've seen in fictious TV shows? Don't make me laugh.
 * The Margaret section is backed up by several reliable sources. And is actually the only one of the "suspects" backed up by several reliable sources.
 * And my problem is not with the quality of the sources, it was the use of them to falsely disrupt the neutrality of the article by quoting opinion as fact and trying assert one ridged view not supported by the source or the rest of the articles.
 * --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * PB said, "I know of no evidence that Baldwin is considered to be a serious figure in the scholarship of the Yorkist period." Like Deb below, I don't like squabbles so I'll keep this short.  I don't know what qualifies as a "serious" figure, but the fact of the matter is that Baldwin is a RS and The History Press publishes some serious, and some less than serious books, just as many publishers do.


 * Also, if "serious" is a WP criteria for a RS, then we might as well toss out any Alison Weir references. She is a sloppy historian and has been called to task by other authors because of it (e.g., Bertram Fields in "Royal Blood").  Be that as it may, she certainly qualifies as a RS, as is Baldwin (no matter what any of us think him), and The History Press publishes good books (perhaps not to everyone's liking but that's just the way it is).


 * Regarding Margaret, years and years ago, I've read that she was a suspect, but I just don't remember where. I think it is extremely unlikely that she had any direct hand in the fate of the princes, although she did benefit from it (by getting H7 on the throne).


 * Finally, can we please speak (write) in a more friendlier tone? I know that we all can get our panties in a bunch occasionally, but please try to be more civil.  Heated (rude) discussions are a big turnoff for me.  Thank you.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think any views were "ridged", and the only one displaying rigidity is you. It should be obvious to anyone why I referred to the scene in the TV series. Your involvement in this whole subject began with the BBC website that was created to support it and which you use as a serious source. So don't make me laugh. Not that there's much chance, as you haven't said anything remotely witty. Now that we've got that out of the way, I see that you have not responded to any of the substantive points about the source. As for your claim that Beaufort's role as a "suspect" is "backed up by several reliable sources", these so-called reliable sources are Baldwin, Gregory and the website. The only serious reliable source (Carpenter) in the section says nothing of the sort, only that she supported Buckingham's rebellion, which is not exactly in dispute by anyone and is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As you know, Paul, I don't like squabbles, but I have to admit that I also can't find any historian except Baldwin who seems to regard Margaret Beaufort as a suspect. Cleanup needed, I'm afraid. Deb (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if these disputes didn't degenerate into acrimony, but they have a tendency to do so, and I admit that I have been in a Grumpy Mood for the past few weeks because of non-wikipedia related stresses, which one reason why I've kept away, as I could tell I was in danger of exploding at someone. I don't think Gregory or the website should be used at all as sources. Baldwin is difficult to place. Hre wrote an article in a local studies journal  which is touted as a "prediction" of where the body was found, though all it does is say roughly where the Friary was (a fairly easy matter to locate) and suggest that the grave would be in "the northern end of Grey Friars Street", which it wasn't. Apart from that I can't find any evidence that Baldwin published anything before he started writing populist books. I'm not saying he didn't, but I get the impression he was involved in local studies in some way. The point is that he is not a scholar known for his publications on late medieval politics in academic journals or with major academic publishers.  I think Baldwin can be used, but with appropriate weight, not presented as though he is the major authority on the topic rather than the proponent of a marginal viewpoint. We do not simply designate sources as "RS" or "not RS" as if there is a rigid distinction between the two, and everything that falls on one side or the other is equally valid or invalid. We judge degrees of reliability by reference to aspects of content and we have to give proper weight to the mainstream scholarly opinion. Weir writes fairly "mainstream" stuff, but she's not, obviously, a major historian. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem here. Well said.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you, Bill. I wondered where you'd gone! :-) Deb (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Been working a lot lately. My company is growing fast, which means a short week is about 50 hours.  :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad you're not ill or anything. Now I must take issue with you about Bertram Fields.  I am not saying he's wrong about Alison Weir, but he is certainly not a historian and doesn't appear to me to have the slightest grasp on reality in terms of historical research.  I would put his book about Richard III on a par with Philippa Gregory's novels in terms of reliability. Deb (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. He is not a trained historian.  He is an attorney who researched the subject (independently of the Richard III Society, interestingly enough) from a defense lawyer/judge perspective.  I found his arguments interesting, but I only brought him up in reference to Alison Weir.  The problem I have with her is only in regards to her sometimes overzealous bias against R3.  And that bias is ably demonstrated by Bertram Fields.  Don't misunderstand me.  She is a nice person who has done some great work, just not on this specific subject.  Nevertheless, Baldwin, Fields, and Weir all deserve their place in this article, even if not on an equal basis as PB said above.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised at how bitter the tone of some of these comments are, has no one a sense of humour? I have to say whatever its failings the recent series "The White Queen" was better than the "The Tudors". Dramatising history is always going to cause problems as lets face it is all about ratings! Best BBC "historical" series was "I Claudius", which was of course based on the fictional novel. Back to the to the "bones" of the princes, I DO wish someone would allow the testing of those old bones. Perhaps when Charles becomes king he might allow it, he has a keen sense of things historical... Freedom1968 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Morning Freedom 1968. To answer your points quickly:
 * 1) The Tudors made no pretence to historical accuracy
 * 2) A website was put up by HBO to make it clear what was and wasn't accurate, while the BBC's accompanying material is less than scrupulous (to the point of being dishonest) in making the distinction.
 * 3) The Tudors had its moments of being badly written and acted (Series 4 in particular was dreadful). However, it was overall a half-decent production that was mostly watchable, for which I think most people were willing to forgive its manifold historical sins. The White Queen was not.
 * 4) Yes, it does aggravate me when as a result of viewpoint pushing on the web, especially here, or fiction masquerading as fact I have to waste my time changing my students' preconceptions, especially as no matter how patient and tactful I am (it may seem surprising to one or two here, but I usually am patient and tactful) it always upsets them. That is one reason why I am bitter against Rushton, although I would add that edit warring, accusing me of vandalism, pushing a fringe theory in defiance of scholarship, labelling serious material as BPOV and and flinging around charges of COI is not at all helpful under the circumstances. And then people wonder why (a) most experts run a mile from WP (b) those of us who at least try to help have to do so on the quiet to protect our reputations and (c) as a result, WP articles are sometimes very much less than perfect. I am gratified to note that s/he is adopting a more conciliatory tone in recent posts and has offered to read the literature - long may it continue.


 * On another topic, I hadn't come across Fields' book, but I would argue that the fact he is a lawyer need not disqualify him from inclusion. Alison Weir is not an academic historian, for example, but she should certainly be in here (I'm surprised so many people have misgivings about her work, incidentally - it may be tendentious, but it isn't actually fraudulent). As an aside, one of the best accounts of the Hundred Years' War was written by Jonathan Sumption, who is a judge (although I think he read history at Oxford). If people have misgivings about any of these, there should be academic reviews available via JSTOR (which Rushton apparently has access to) which could be used to discuss them perhaps?31.54.9.127 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Good evening sport. Guess we will have to differ on our favorite historical series, but that's fair, each to their own. I am sure we could have a whole load of fun if we started some pages on Historical inaccuracies portrayed in films and on TV! On your point 4) I fully sympathise with you. Although I have only been contributing since 2011 on a regular basis, I get very frustrated at times about the Wiki OR rules. That is why I always test out the water on the Talk pages, although again Wiki has ruled that Talk pages cannot be used for general discussion points so I must be a Wiki Law breaker! I think it is almost inevitable that in seeking to discuss contributions that there is going to be debate. And why not it is a free world/internet?

It seems to me that there is a clear different between the sort of contribution that Ms Weir makes, and say one by an Erik Von Dannikan or a David Irving. The former is misguided if not a little tongue in cheek, whilst the latter is positively sinister in method and intent to provoke. Sometimes I feel that even if the writer is mistaken factually, or demonstrably wrong in their analysis of something that can in a way be a good thing. I made the same mistake myself when contributing on a earlier Talk pages on the fate of princes. But I think I was enough honest enough to recognize that I had got egg on my face by making a statement I had not checked beforehand. We are all human we make mistakes no one should take anybody less seriously for that. Only if the debate loses reason and decorum or falls into personal abuse should we take a step back. I should state I am not a member of the Richard III society and don't hold positive or negative views either way, though as I made in clear earlier I love a good mystery - especially if it has the potential to be solved....!

I am fascinated by your reference to hiding your identity from your employers, that is a real shame, but on the other hand I can understand that. I haven't come across the books you quote, but will certainly have a look at them when I do. Freedom1968 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually kind of liked The White Queen, in spite of everything. That's of course a different thing from seeing it as a factual portrayal of events.  My reason for disliking Bertram Fields' approach is that (a) some people appear to believe that, because he's a lawyer, he is necessarily good at interpreting historical events - I don't see why a lawyer should necessarily be considered honest, clever or unbiased.  (b) his fault, to me, seems to be the same as that of most Ricardians, which is the failure to recognise that fifteen far-fetched fringe theories do not outweigh one well-founded one; in other words, a failure to see that the many theories of what might have happened to the princes (they didn't die at all, they died of natural causes, Buckingham murdered them, Margaret Beaufort murdered them, etc) are all mutually exclusive. Deb (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from on Bertram Fields because he presents many different points of view, but he was very clear in the beginning of "Royal Blood" that his point was to examine the evidence as best as can be done here and now and decide whether there is reasonable doubt that Richard III is guilty of murdering the Princes. That's all.


 * But Fields' point was not to present one theory as the one he picked instead of "Richard III is guilty." I agreed with his conclusion that one cannot say Richard III is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because 1) we can't absolutely prove there was murder in the first place, and 2) we cannot definitely conclude that no one else had motive, means or opportunity.  He did point out that since the boys disappeared while in Richard's official custody Richard is suspect #1.  Even if all the other theories added together show less probability of guilt than Richard it would still be enough to show reasonable doubt.  That's really all Fields was aiming at.  That and to show how hard it is to examine evidence from the past and evaluate it with today's methods - for instance, our witness testimony is hearsay because we can't question the witnesses ourselves.  I take his book as a good explanation of why we can never definitively say Richard was guilty and this subject will always remain a fascinating mystery.


 * Fields' criticism of Weir I understand. Regarding her book on this subject, Fields nails points where she states a fact - or something taken as fact, such as More's history - and extrapolates specious conclusions with no thought path as to how she got from A to Q.  He also points out her self-contradictions especially when dealing with More's account.  I better enjoyed her book about Katherine Swynford, where she was very clear that there is very little documentation and much that we conclude about her is educated guess, that she was presenting the most likely scenarios based on what we can document about Katherine and those around her.  Weir was quite careful in citing her sources and it was a fine read.  Weir's book on the Princes in the Tower mystery, not so much.


 * Sorry for the wordiness. I have recently reread "Royal Blood" to find sources on some things I remembered from it, so the book is much on my mind. :)  History Lunatic (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic