Editing Princes in the Tower (section)

===Richard III===
Many historians conclude that [[Richard III of England|Richard III]], the princes' uncle, is the likeliest culprit in the case of the disappearance of the princes for a number of reasons. Although the princes had been eliminated from the succession, Richard's hold on the monarchy was very insecure due to the way in which he had attained the crown, leading to a backlash against him by the Yorkist establishment.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hicks|first1=Michael|title=Richard III|date=2003|publisher=History Press|location=Stroud|pages=209–210|edition=Revised}}</ref> An attempt had already been made to rescue them and restore Edward to the throne, clear evidence that the existence of the princes would remain a threat as long as they were alive. The boys could have been used by Richard's enemies as figureheads for rebellion.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hicks|first1=Michael|title=Richard III|date=2003|publisher=History Press|location=Stroud|page=210|edition=Revised}}</ref> Rumours of their death were in circulation by late 1483, but Richard never attempted to prove that they were alive by having them seen in public, which strongly suggests that they were dead by then. However, he did not remain silent on the matter. [[Raphael Holinshed]], in his ''Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland'', written in 1577, reports that Richard, "what with purging and declaring his innocence concerning the murder of his nephews towards the world, and what with cost to obtain the love and favour of the communal tie (which outwardlie glosed, and openly dissembled with him) ... gave prodigally so many and so great rewards, that now both he lacked, and scarce with honesty how to borrow".<ref>Raphael Holinshed, ''Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland'', 1577, p. 746, commencing on line 48.</ref> Richard also failed to open any investigation into the matter, which would have been in his interest if he was not responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

Richard was on a progression through the Yorkist heartlands at the time the princes were last seen alive.<ref name="Michael Hicks 2003 p 210">Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) p 210</ref> They were under guard in the Tower of London, which was controlled by his men, and access to them was strictly limited by his instructions.<ref name="Jonathan Cape">{{cite book|last1=Weir|first1=Alison|title=Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen|date=2013|publisher=Jonathan Cape|location=London|page=104}}</ref> It is unlikely they could have been murdered without his knowledge.<ref name="Jonathan Cape"/> More and Polydore Vergil both name Sir James Tyrrell as the murderer. Tyrrell, an English knight who fought for the [[House of York]] on many occasions, was arrested by Henry VII's forces in 1502 for supporting another Yorkist claimant to the throne. Shortly before his execution, Tyrrell is said by More to have admitted, under torture, to having murdered the princes at the behest of Richard III.<ref>Rosemary Horrox, 'Tyrell, Sir James (c.1455–1502)', [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27952 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography], Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008, accessed 27 August 2013 {{subscription required}}</ref> The only record of this is the writing of Thomas More, who wrote that, during his examination, Tyrrell made his confession as to the murders, saying that Richard III ordered their deaths. He also implicated two other men; despite further questioning, however, he was unable to say where the bodies were, claiming that Brackenbury had moved them.<ref>[http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/docs/Thomas%20More%20Reader%20IV%203.pdf Thomas More, ''The History of King Richard the Third''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316231621/http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/docs/Thomas%20More%20Reader%20IV%203.pdf |date=16 March 2016 }}. Accessed 20 September 2013</ref> William Shakespeare portrays him as the culprit, sought out by Richard after Buckingham demurs. This version of events is accepted by Alison Weir<ref>The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir (1992) {{ISBN|978-0-345-39178-0}} pp 156–166</ref> and Hicks notes that his successful career and rapid promotion after 1483 "is consistent with his alleged murder of the princes".<ref>Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) p 189</ref> However, the only record of Tyrrell's confession is through More, and "no actual confession has ever been found". Pollard casts doubts on the accuracy of More's accounts, suggesting it was "an elaboration of one of several circulating accounts"; however, he does not discount the possibility of it being "just his own invention", pointing to the "clear similarities to the stories of the [[Babes in the Wood]]".<ref name=Pollard/> Clements Markham suggested that More's account was actually written by Archbishop Morton and that Tyrrell was induced to do the deed by Henry VII between 16 June and 16 July 1486, the dates of two general pardons that he received from the king.<ref>{{harvnb|Markham|1906|p=270}}</ref> However, a registry copy of a will dated to 1516 has been rediscovered in the [[British National Archives]], written by Tyrrell's sister-in-law [[Margaret Arundell|Dame Margaret Capel]], wife of [[William Capel]], in which she bequeaths a gold chain to her son [[Giles Capel|Giles]] that had belonged to her husband and before him, to Edward V,<ref>Susan E. James, ''Women's Voices in Tudor Wills, 1485–1603: Authority, Influence and Material'' (Ashgate, 2015), p. 88: Nicholas Harris Nicolas, ''Vestusta Testamenta'', 2 (London, 1826), p. 595.</ref><ref>William Minet, [https://archive.org/details/transactionsess01socigoog/page/n311/mode/2up "Capells at Rayne", ''Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society'', 9:4 (Colchester, 1904), p. 243]</ref> possibly his chain of office. William Capel appears to have given the chain to his wife while he was alive, as it is not mentioned in his will, nor is it mentioned in the will of Giles or any of his descendants. Although it is unknown how the chain came into William's possession, he is recorded to have exchanged jewellery with the Tyrrells. This revelation has revived interest in More's account.<ref>[https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/news/extraordinary-new-clue-about-the-princes-in-the-tower-found-at-the-national-archives/ Extraordinary new clue about the Princes in the Tower found at The National Archives], The National Archives, 2024, accessed 2 December 2024</ref><ref>Tim Thornton, "Sir William Capell and A Royal Chain: The Afterlives (and Death) of King Edward V", ''History: The Journal of the Historical Association'', 109:308 (2024), pp. 445–480. {{doi|10.1111/1468-229X.13430}}</ref>

Richard's guilt was widely accepted by contemporaries. George Cely, Dominic Mancini, John Rous, Fabyan's Chronicle, the Crowland Chronicler and the London Chronicle all noted the disappearance of the Princes, and all bar Mancini (who noted that he had no knowledge of what had happened) repeated rumours naming Richard as the murderer.<ref>Pollard 121–122</ref> Guillaume de Rochefort, Chancellor of France, named Richard as the murderer to the Estates General at Tours in January 1484.<ref>Pollard 122</ref> It also appears to have been the belief of Elizabeth Woodville, who would go on to support Henry Tudor in his campaign against Richard III. One possible motive for Elizabeth Woodville subsequently making her peace with Richard and bringing her daughters out of sanctuary could be that Richard had to swear a solemn oath, before witnesses, to protect and provide for her surviving children, which made it much less likely they could be quietly murdered as it was believed their brothers had been.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Weir|first1=Alison|title=Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen|date=2013|publisher=Jonathan Cape|location=London|page=105}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Cheetham|first1=Antony|title=The Life and Times of Richard III|date=1972|publisher=Weidenfeld & Nicolson|location=London|page=151}}</ref><ref>Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) pp 223–224</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Weir|first1=Alison|title=Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen|date=2013|publisher=Jonathan Cape|location=London|pages=112–114}}</ref>

In line with this contemporary opinion many current historians, including [[David Starkey]],<ref name="The Society - History"/> [[Michael Hicks (historian)|Michael Hicks]],<ref>Richard III by Michael Hicks (2003) {{ISBN|978-0-7524-2589-4}}</ref> [[Helen Castor]]<ref>Helen Castor, ''She-Wolves: the Women who Ruled England before Elizabeth'' (Faber, 2010), {{ISBN|978-0-571-23706-7}}, p. 402</ref> and A. J. Pollard<ref>Pollard p 135</ref> regard Richard himself as the most likely culprit. There was no formal accusation against Richard III on the matter; the [[Bill of Attainder]] brought by Henry VII made no definitive mention of the Princes in the Tower, but it did accuse Richard of "the unnatural, mischievous and great perjuries, treasons, homicides and murders, in shedding of infant's blood, with many other wrongs, odious offences and abominations against God and man".<ref>[[James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps]], ''Letters of the Kings of England,'' Vol. 1 (1846), p. 161.</ref><ref>''Rotuli Parliamentorum'', J. Strachey (ed.), VI, (1777), p. 276</ref> The "shedding of infant's blood" may be an accusation of the Princes' murder. Hicks speculated that it was a reference to speeches made in Parliament condemning the murder of the princes, which suggested that Richard's guilt had become common knowledge, or at least common wisdom.<ref name="Michael Hicks 2003 p 210"/>