Read Cold Case Reopened: The Princes in the Tower Online
Authors: Mark Garber
Lord Montagu, Reginald Pole's brother, had already been executed on charges of treason in 1539. Margaret Pole and Montagu's young son Henry Pole had been confined in the Tower since then. In 1541 Margaret Pole, old and infirm as she was, was sent to the block. The execution was famously botched and her death sent shock waves around the kingdom. Henry Pole, aged 14, was still in the Tower with instructions that he was to be
“strictly kept.”
However there is no evidence or guide as to the fate that might have befallen him. Some academics suggest that he might have been starved to death. The last record of him was in 1542 in the Tower of London's records, where a record was made in the accounts ledgers of payment for his food.
Could Henry Pole be one of our skeletons? He certainly fits into the potential age bracket. In addition, if he had been
“strictly kept”
then this might explain the fact that skeletons were of a slightly built child. If he is, then that raises the fascinating question of who is the other skeleton in the chest? We do not believe that Henry Pole was imprisoned with another child.
Using Occam's razor principle then, it is far more likely that two skeletons in one chest are going to be the missing princes as opposed to Henry Pole and an unknown other or just common prisoners.
There have been numerous attempts by the Richard III society to have further forensic tests undertaken on the bones. However, the home secretary, the monarch and the Church of England all have to agree to testing. As of yet, this is something that has not occurred.
Radiocarbon dating has always been the principle aim of these new tests, together with establishing the sex of the skeletons and to see if blood was present on the elder skull.
If new tests could prove that the skeletons were male, that would be a significant step in moving to confirm that the skeletons are the princes. Radiocarbon dating is normally correct to within 40 or 50 years. By performing these tests we could least determine the rough period that they date from. If there was blood present on the skull then this could then go some way forward to confirming that death was caused by suffocation.
If these tests were ever undertaken and they all proved positive then we could probably raise the likelihood that these were the bones of the princes to the 90%+ mark. In addition to identification we would have a likely cause of death. Identification and cause of death are all significant factors in police murder enquiries.
However, since the confirmed discovery of Richard III's body under a car park in Leicester in 2012 there have been further suggestions of additional forensic tests.
Namely, if DNA could be extracted from the skeletons then this could be compared to that already extracted from the body of Richard III to prove beyond all doubt that these skeletons were really the princes. However, despite the excitement on the internet (and various badly researched newspaper articles) this test is not possible. DNA comparisons come from the maternal genetic line. Richard was the princes' paternal uncle. His own DNA would be useless in attempting to identify the bodies.
However, this is not an end to the matter of DNA testing the skeletons. The living descendants of Richard III whose DNA was used to identify the king's remains actually came through the female line, from Richard and Edward's sister Anne, so that DNA could be used.
Of course, Elizabeth Woodville lies next to her husband in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Her DNA could also be used to test the skeletons, although the likelihood of being able to dig up another royal tomb is near to zero.
If the DNA tests were ever completed the results could potentially throw some interesting results:
1.
The DNA could match, proving the skeletons were the princes.
2.
The DNA could match the elder skeleton but not the younger.
3.
The DNA could match neither skeleton, but this might prove nothing.
Let us consider each of the possibilities in turn:
1.
If the bones were confirmed to be the princes then it doesn’t take Inspector Morse to deduce that a burial in a chest, under rubble, under a stairwell is likely to indicate the princes did not die of natural causes. We would have a confirmed murder case on our hands.
The next crucial piece of information would then be age of the boys at death. Remember there were only three years between Richard III's accession to the throne and his death at Bosworth. Who was the monarch at the time of the boys' death? A death after August 1482 would leave Richard III firmly off the hook.
If we take Wright and Tanner's forensic dental work as gospel this would indicate a time of death shortly after Richard III's accession to the throne. However, we now know from the British Dental Association that there is a 4 year error factor. Based on this fact the deaths could easily have occurred up to a year after Bosworth.
2.
This DNA result would be the most interesting of the possibilities. This would mean that the elder of the two boys was King Edward V. However, the younger of the two boys would not have been Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. There have long been theories (expanded by modern novelists) that Elizabeth Woodville gave a changeling to Richard III in the place of her second son, the Duke of York. We will consider the changeling theory a little later in the book.
3.
A negative DNA result on both sets of bones might prove nothing. Edward IV’s parentage was questioned publicly a number of times, both during his own reign when his brother George tried unsuccessfully to claim the throne and just prior to Richard III being offered the crown. If there were truth to these rumours then the DNA of Anne Plantagenet might never have been a match for her
nephews
anyway.
After the confirmation that Richard III's body had been found in Leicester, the Richard III society once more applied to have these very tests undertaken on the bones. Once again, the answer came back no.
As Westminster Abbey is a royal peculiar the monarch has to agree to any tests on the bones. Her Majesty is very clear that she wants the bones to lay undisturbed.
Recently released Government papers show the monarch, home secretary and the Church of England all to be in agreement on the matter (these papers relate to an earlier request in the 1980s.) The papers show that the great concern is that if permission was granted to examine the bones then it would set a precedent, and this might result in requests to disturb numerous royal tombs. For example, historians might want to test Henry VIII's body to find out if he did have syphilis or type-two diabetes.
There is no indication from the present Prince of Wales that his stance would be different. So for the considerable present there is little possibility that additional forensic tests would take place.
Of course, the skeletons are not the only human remains that have been suggested to be the bodies of the princes.
There are a number of early writings that suggest that the bodies were dropped into the sea or the Thames by the priest of Sir Roger Brackenbury. Brackenbury was by this stage the Constable of the Tower of London and would have been well placed to take part in any murder.
There is a short tantalizing section in Archaeologia, Volume LXXXIV that reports of a sealed up room being discovered in the royal apartments of the Tower of London. Inside that room were the skeletons of two children. However, this is the only mention of this case. If it were true then surely there would have been further investigation and subsequent attempts to locate the room. However, simple searching on the internet does show that one of the “theories” about the fate of the Princes is that they were sealed in a room and starved to death.
The most credible other theory about the bodies of the princes comes from 1789. Workmen in St George's Chapel accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville while repairing a sunken floor. A large lead coffin was seen with the remains of a wooden one on top - Edward and Elizabeth lying for eternity together. A discovery was made of a sub vault to the main vault. Within the vault were two more coffins. The workmen noted that the inscription above the sub vault stated George, Duke of Bedford and Mary of York. These were children of Edward and Elizabeth. George had died aged just two and Mary at 14. The vault was sealed again without further investigation.
However, during the excavations for the tomb of George III between 1810 and 1813 a strange discovery was made - two coffins. One bore the inscription
“serenissimus princeps Georgius filius tercius Christianissimi principis Edvardi iiij”,
indicating that this was in fact the coffin of George. We know from the burial records that Mary was
“buried by my Lorde George, her brother.”
There are suggestions that Mary's coffin was opened and a lock of hair removed, hence we can assume that it was Mary's body inside the second coffin. The coffins were both moved to the vault of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. Of course, the mysterious coffins discovered twenty years earlier were still there. These mystery coffins were never examined and the Edward IV vault was resealed.
So the question that must be answered is: who is buried in that sub vault?
St George's Chapel is not a public graveyard, and bodies are not buried there on a regular basis. It would be highly unlikely that burials had been made without a record being made. A detailed look at the burial records actually shows that despite the inscription above the sub vault there was no way that George and Mary could be buried there as this area of the chapel had not been completed at the time of their deaths. The sub vault was probably placed there with the intention to move the coffins, so the children could be with the parents.
There is a possibility that an error was made at some point and the incorrect coffins have been moved. However, there is no record that any coffins had been moved into the Edward IV vault.
The other possibility is that these coffins contain the remains of the princes. Let us move away from fact for a moment and suggest in our minds that these coffins do contain the bodies of the princes. What better place to hide bodies than in a vault? Even better, bury them in a royal vault, in the middle of a royal palace. People simply do not go breaking into royal vaults. The bodies would be hidden for an eternity. The location is significant, as it would suggest that whoever had placed the bodies there was attempting, in some small way, to re-address the boys' deaths by burying them alongside their father. Does this mean that Richard III was responsible and that old loyalty to his elder brother was suddenly coming out again?
There is of course an issue. Whoever had laid the bodies to rest would have been aware that Elizabeth Woodville had yet to die and the vault would be opened again at her death. Would it be a risk that an investigation be undertaken if the two mysterious coffins were spotted? Elizabeth Woodville's funeral took place on the 12
th
June 1492. At this time Henry Tudor was firmly on the throne. All her surviving children attended the funeral, apart from Elizabeth of York who was in confinement about to give birth to another royal child. There is no suggestion that anyone raised any concerns about the contents of the vaults.
Therefore, all we can be sure of is that these coffins were placed in the vault sometime between 20
th
April 1483 and 1789.
Further investigation would be required to determine anything further than this. Again, there is next to zero chance that any permission would be given to do this.
If the bones in Westminster Abbey were ever proven not to be those of the princes, then Edward IV's vault would be my first port of call to search for the bodies.
We have three different reports and possibilities regarding discovery of human remains that could be the Princes in the Tower.
1.
Bones of two children found under the stairwell in the Tower of London that correspond with More’s written account of the resting place of the murdered Princes.
2.
Bones of children found in a sealed up room in the Tower of London. This report is unverified and the age of the children is unknown.
3.
Two additional coffins in the vault of Edward IV. Is it is unknown to whom these coffins belong and why they have been buried alongside Edward IV.
All of the above accounts relate to findings of a
pair
of human remains.
Despite the fact that none of these remains have actually been confirmed to be the princes, I would suggest that there is enough plausibility to say that the princes were murdered.
Therefore we are dealing with a murder case.
We have determined that we are dealing with a murder case. However, we have no formal identification of the bodies.
There is a theory that whoever murdered the Princes in the Tower did not actually do so. Instead they murdered Edward V and an unknown boy that Elizabeth Woodville had substituted for her second son Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.
On the face of it, it is a highly plausible theory. We have already established that Elizabeth Woodville was a calculating woman, and it is clearly something that was not beyond her. On hearing news of Gloucester's actions on the road, Elizabeth immediately fled with the rest of her family to the safety of Westminster Abbey. Between their arrival at the abbey and the point she finally handed over York, there was a period of around six weeks. This would have given Elizabeth more than ample opportunity to get her son away. Despite the fact that she was in sanctuary this did not mean that she was cut off from the outside world. She received regular communications about events going on in London; the loyal people of the city even supplied her with generous amounts of food. It is believed that the family lodged in the abbot's house; she certainly was not forced to bed down amongst the tombs.