The Princes in the Tower: Will the ultimate cold case finally be solved after more than 500 years?

It is perhaps the greatest of all cold cases: who was responsible for the death of the two Princes in the Tower. But historians who believe their disappearance will forever remain a mystery should think again. Philippa Langley, the historian and screenwriter who spearheaded the Looking for Richard project that resulted in one of the greatest historical discoveries of modern times – the grave of Richard III located beneath a car park in Leicester – is back once more, attempting to crack the case, The Independent can reveal. It is widely assumed the Plantagenet King Richard III killed his nephews in the summer of 1483 after their father, Edward IV, died. Twelve-year-old Edward V, expecting his coronation, was taken to the Tower of London along with his nine-year-old brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. But the accession never occurred.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-princes-in-the-tower-will-the-ultimate-cold-case-finally-be-solved-after-more-than-500-years-10466190.html


I shall be following this with great interest.

We may find Edward's bones in the tower stones, but that won't settle who put them there.  

The greatest dynastic discontinuity took place in the transition from the Plantagenets to the Tudurs.  Henry VII had a claim only through the bastard line of John of Gaunt and his lover, Katherine Swynford.  The weakness of Henry's claim means he had far more to gain by killing Edward V, the last Plantagenet direct heir, than Richard III, already Edward's regent.

I agree he far more to gain from his deaths, and hence why I will be following this with interest as one of the points being reasearched here more is of what records Herny destroyed. We have what has been classed as their remains found by Charles II intered at Henry VII Lady Chapel in Westminster Abbey, but have been denied access to them to foresensic tests by the Church of England and the Queen so far before. This is not the direction of her research, you need to read the article Quill.


From the link:

The suspects

Richard III
The prime suspect, escorted Edward V to the Tower of London where he was last seen.
Motive – insecure hold on the monarchy due to the way he obtained the crown, faced rebellions from the Yorkists loyal to Edward IV prior to Parliament conforming his title to the throne in January 1484. Evidence – circumstantial. Ms Langley argues that it would have better served Richard III to display the dead bodies in public to prevent pretenders to the throne coming forward.

Henry VII (Henry Tudor)
Richard III’s rival who defeated his forces at the Battle of Bosworth. Motive – executed rival claimants to the throne following his coronation. Evidence – Henry Tudor was out of the country at the time of the princes’ disappearance and so could only have murdered them post-accession. Historians have called the theory the only plausible alternative to Richard III’s being the killer.

Henry Stafford
2nd Duke of Buckingham, kingmaker and breaker: played a major role in the rise and fall of Richard III. Motive – held a claim to the throne through the House of Beaufort family. Evidence – a manuscript found in the early 1980s in the College of Arms collection states that the princes were murdered “be [by] the vise” of the Duke of Buckingham. There is some argument over whether “vise” means “advice” or “devise”.

Sir James Tyrell
English knight, loyal servant to Richard III. Motive – following the orders of his king. Evidence – said to have confessed under torture to the murder of the princes before his execution for treason in 1502, according to Sir Thomas More’s The History of King Richard III. The original document containing his confession  was never produced. Shakespeare portrayed  Tyrell as the murderer in his play Richard III.

Don't forget Margaret Beaufort, she had the idea that Henry's right to ascend the throne was god given and she seemed to be prepared to do whatever it took to bring that about, in fact she seemed to see it as her mission in life. If I remember correctly I think she was in the Tower at the time or certainly had access and would have people available to deal with things, including her second husband who was somewhat 'dodgy' to say the least.

Vintage wrote:Don't forget Margaret Beaufort, she had the idea that Henry's right to ascend the throne was god given and she seemed to be prepared to do whatever it took to bring that about, in fact she seemed to see it as her mission in life. If I remember correctly I think she was in the Tower at the time or certainly had access and would have people available to deal with things, including her second husband who was somewhat 'dodgy' to say the least.

That is a very good point.

I just looked up Margaret Beaufort and it was her as I thought 3rd husband she was with during the Princes in the Tower time, who was in fact her fourth husband as she had been married as a baby but the marriage was desolved a couple of years later and she never acknowledged the marriage, you learn something new all the time.

Margaret Beaufort was the great grand daughter in the illegitimate line of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford. She was the daughter of the Duke of Somerset and the mother of Henry VII.

She was very active in the education of Henry VIII, who was raised with the priesthood in mind. She had a tough life was known as a behind-the-scenes designer and grand manipulator.

Okay now we are getting somewhere.
So who do we think is the best candidate here for the childrens death and why?
We have a few suspects and who stood to gain more, but is that the best reason to make when we have to factor in also the personalities of these suspects?
It would be interesting to see who produces the best reasonss for who murdered these boys

Catch you later

I know britain doesnt have a statute of limitations but FFS, 500 years ????

some how i dont think you are going to get a prosecution on THIS one