One of British history’s most fascinating figures, Richard III may be most notorious for the mystery surrounding the deaths of his two nephews, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York in 1483 in the Tower of London. Richard III’s two nephews, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, died in their beds. Edward V had a claim to the throne through his father, Edward IV, and was a principal obstacle to Richard III assuming the throne. Many historians have tried – in vain – to provide a definitive answer to Richard’s culpability.
There is substantial evidence to suggest that the deaths were the result of foul play. Richard III is seen as a power-hungry tyrant who killed his own brother George by drowning him in a vat of wine and then murdered his young nephews to bulldoze his way to the throne of England. Italian friar Dominic Mancini visited England from January to June 1483 and witnessed the events leading up to the princes’ disappearance. His report, written in December 1483, De Occupatione Regni Anglie Per Riccardum Tercium (“The Usurpation of Richard III”), details his experiences in England. He states that he saw the two princes taken into the Tower and that sightings of them grew increasingly infrequent. Given that these boys were the only obstacle between Richard and the crown, it seems damning that Richard plotted to eliminate them by first making the public forget they ever existed and then murdering them.
Moreover, there are reports of a rebellion in spring 1483 in which people campaigned to free the princes before matters escalated. Clearly, there was public suspicion of sinister happenings in the Tower, and perhaps Richard, spooked by rumour and protest, acted rashly by killing the princes and passing it off as a disappearance beyond his knowledge.
Another writer who vilified Richard was Sir Thomas More, a Tudor scholar, and later advisor to Henry VIII. More wrote The History of King Richard III in 1513, which outlined the theory that the murderer was not Richard himself but Sir James Tyrrell, an English knight and trusted member of Richard III’s household, acting on his orders. Tyrrell, a loyal servant of Richard, is said to have confessed to the details of the murder before his execution in 1502. It is alleged that he claimed not to have carried it out, but admitted to instructing two men, Miles Forrest and John Dighton, to kill the boys in their bed. For More, this proved that Richard and his circle were cowardly and corrupt. However, it should be noted that it was politically convenient for the Tudors to portray Richard as a villain to justify their own claim to the throne.
Some have suggested that the boys died of natural causes. Edward was reportedly seen frequently by a doctor before his death, and skeletal examinations have revealed jaw complications. It may seem far-fetched to attribute his death to jaw pain, but this could have been a symptom of a more serious condition. Periodontal disease and osteomyelitis, both of which cause jaw pain, are possible culprits. Osteomyelitis, if untreated, can lead to fractures and gangrene. Since it was not identified until 1844, it is plausible that Edward suffered from it. Still, the question of young Richard remains unexplained by this conjecture.
The other side suggests that Richard III did not kill the boys and that someone else was responsible. His image was tarnished through William Shakespeare’s eponymous play, which portrays him as a “lump of foul deformity”, a wicked, hunchbacked killer. This caricature has warped the public memory of Richard and made him infamous for all the wrong reasons. Shakespeare even has Richard say, in Act 4, Scene 2: “I wish the bastards dead, And I would have it suddenly performed.” It is likely, however, that Shakespeare was more concerned with finding favour with Elizabeth I, a Tudor monarch, than with historical accuracy.
Another shadowy figure in the affair is Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. He was Richard’s right-hand man, but since the exact date of the princes’ deaths is unknown, many dismissed him as a suspect because of his own execution in November 1483. Yet his execution followed a rebellion against the king in October that year, implying a falling out. Perhaps Buckingham sabotaged Richard’s reputation and killed the princes in revenge. A Portuguese document from the time names Buckingham as the princes’ guardian, suggesting he had both motive and means to commit the murders.
A rather romantic, idea is that the princes survived. In 1674, workmen at the Tower found two skeletons ten feet below a staircase. They were declared to be the princes’ remains, and the blame was laid squarely on Richard. But a 1933 analysis was inconclusive. Two men later claimed to be Richard, Edward V’s younger brother, in 1487 and 1498, but these imposters were debunked. Still, why claim to be Richard, a duke, rather than Edward, the uncrowned king?
In the end, the evidence points most strongly to Richard III as the killer of the Princes in the Tower – he stood to gain the most, had access to them, and was one of the few permitted within the Tower’s walls. Yet, given the absence of definitive proof, the mystery will likely remain unsolved in perpetuity.