Forbidden History - The Vanishing of the Princes in the Tower

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

TW: The following episode contains discussion of child abuse, please listen with care.  In 1483, two young heirs vanished from the Tower of London, sparking centuries of speculation. In this episode of the Forbidden History podcast, we examine the theories surrounding their disappearance, including the controversial connection to Richard III, whose recently exhumed body has reignited questions about his role in their deaths… Cast List: Ciaran O’Keefe: Criminal Psychologist Prof. Michael Green: Forensic Pathologist  Andrew Rose: Barrister & QC Richard Felix: Author & Historian  Tracy Borman: Chief Curator at Royal Historical Palaces Nigel Jones: Author & Historian Eric Meyers: Narrator  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Forbidden History Podcast. This program is presented solely for educational and entertainment purposes. It contains mature adult themes. Listener discretion is advised. England, 1483. Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, have been confined to the Tower of London on the orders of their uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The two young boys were last seen playing together in the grounds of the castle.

After this, there is no record of their whereabouts. They seem to have just disappeared. Over the centuries, historians have argued as to what really happened. Some say they were murdered on the orders of their uncle, Richard III. For me, Richard III was really the prime suspect. He had the most to gain from the deaths of his nephews. Only if they were out of the way, would he be recognized? would he be recognised as king?

Others believe that the brothers were killed by Henry the 7th. Henry the 7th certainly stood to benefit from the absence of other claimants to the throne or people who were perhaps perceived of a better claim to the stone than he had. And there are even those who believe that one of the princes may have escaped. Legend has it that one of the two princes,

Richard Duke of York, the younger, actually survived. and was reputedly crowned king in Ireland. It's one of the greatest mysteries of the past. Just what did happen to the princes in the tower? During the 15th century, England was in the midst of a conflict known as the War of the Roses. Two rival factions of the Plantagenet dynasty, the House of York, and the House of Lancaster, were in a constant struggle for control of the English throne.

By 1483, and after nearly 30 years of wars, the House of York had become the ruling party, and was now under the reign of King Edward IV of England. The House of Lancaster had been virtually wiped out. The only rival Edward now had was Henry Tudor, but he was in exile in France, and posed no threat to the king. But Edward was not to rule for much longer. He contracted a mystery illness, and his health soon began to fail. Hill. On his deathbed, he declared that he was to be succeeded by his eldest son, Prince Edward,

making his youngest son, Prince Richard, second in line to the throne. But the princes were just 12 and 9 years old at the time. So King Edward declared his brother Richard, Duke of York, Lord Protector. After the king's death, just days later, Richard had the princes move to the Tower of London. They were brought to the tower and there is no suspicion at that time that there was anything wrong with this. The tower at that time was not only a fortress and a prison, it was also the centre of royal government in London and it was the place where the Kings of England traditionally spent the last few nights before their coronation. Richard III did in fact swear an oath to protect his nephews.

As Lord Protector, Richard swore an oath to the king and to God, promising to look after and care for the princes until Edward was crowned king. King Edward V. 4 had trusted Richard, who was known to be his favorite brother. They had fought and bled together on the battlefield. One of Edward's first actions as king was to hold a ceremony to have Richard knighted. As far as the king was concerned, there was no indication that Richard wouldn't uphold his holy oath.

I think Richard III decided fairly early on what he was going to do. He intercepted the two princes at Stony Stratford when they were moving rather slowly towards London, towards the coronation, and he took physical charge of them, brought them at first to the tower and said that they were going to be crowned. But later on, stage by stage, you could call it a slow-moving coup d'etat. He took over the functions of the king himself and then proclaimed that the two princes were bastard slips of his brother and that he was the true legitimate heir and that he was the one who was going to be crowned in their place.

A clergyman is said to have found evidence which claimed that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, the mother of the princes, was void and that the two boys were therefore illegitimate, making Richard the rightful heir to the English crown. Less than one month later, Richard assumed the throne. The princes, now removed from the line of succession, had to await their fate at the tower. They would have been honored as royalty. They would have been treated with every mark of respect due to royalty.

Later on, they became prisoners. It probably would have been lonely, and the longer they were there, the more it became obvious that the older boy was not going to crown king, that Richard was going to seize the throne, and that their fate would probably be a grim one. They had the knowledge of what had happened to kings

in the previous 30 years of the Wars of the Roses. They knew that to be a king of England, especially a child king, was not a recipe for a long and happy life. It was reported that Prince Edward found it increasingly difficult to cope during his time at the tower. He was in a severe depression. He was no longer washing, he was dirty, and appeared to be completely indifferent to his fate

as though he knew what fate awaited him. Then there was a wall of silence over their face. No one knows exactly what happened to them. As king, Richard's reign would only last for two years. In 1485, the Lancastrian, Henry Tudor, had returned to England, having raised an army to overthrow him. Richard's Yorkist army engaged Henry and his supporters at what was to become known as the Battle of Bosworth Field.

The fighting lasted for little more than three hours, and there were heavy casualties on both sides. on both sides. Eventually, Richard III was slain on the battlefield. Victorious Henry Tudor took his place on the throne and was crowned King Henry the 7th of England. Strangely, even after Henry seized power, he never made any public announcements

about what happened to the princes. Could it be he didn't know, or did he, as some people believe, have something to do with it? But during the reign of Charles II, nearly 200 years later, tradesmen carrying out construction work at the tower in 1674 made a shocking discovery. The skeletal remains of two children were found under a stone staircase. It was assumed that they were the bones of Edward and his brother Richard.

The reality is that there's no hard scientific evidence that these skeletons were in fact the princes in the tower. There was some analysis carried out in the 1930s, which suggested an injury to the skulls commensurate with suffocation or with pressure being applied to their skulls. Now at the time of the discovery of the skeletons, it was noted that pieces of velvet adhered to the bones. That suggested that they were of some wealth, they were of some status, and in fact, really, it was only members of the royal family who usually wore velvet.

So that was perhaps the most compelling evidence of all. In 1933, Professor William Wright, one of the leading anatomists of his time, was granted permission to examine the bones that had been discovered at the tower. His findings concluded that the bones could have belonged to children of roughly the same age as the princes when they disappeared. Dr. Wright also pointed out an area of discoloration on the skull of the older child, which which he believed to be signs consistent with smothering. Author and historian Richard Felix recounts a theory that some people now believe to be true.

The year is 1483. Two young souls have been imprisoned in the Tower of London. They are Richard Duke of York and his elder brother, the future King Edward V. Who put them here? no less than their uncle, possibly the most evil, wicked king in British history, King Richard the 3rd. Both princes were heirs to the throne and posed a real threat, not only to their uncle, King Richard III, but also to Henry Tudor, the future King Henry the 7th.

And they had to be eliminated. Although the Tower of London was a royal palace, I'm afraid that their accommodation was rather scanty and nothing more than a large cell. And they were frequently seen by eyewitnesses playing behind bars. So what really happened to the princes in the tower? The official story, for one of the better words,

is that they just disappeared. But over the centuries, historians of art argued as to what really happened. They say that two assassins went into their chambers while they were asleep and smothered them with pillows. Mm-hmm, it's possible. I think that it was far more vicious and far more tactile than that. And I would imagine that the two assassins crept into the boys' room.

The boys, for all we know, had been drugged. And I would imagine that what happened is that a hand was put over each mouth, fingers pinching the nose, and kicked the prisoner on, probably, for something like 30 seconds, until life for those two young princess was extinct. In 1933, the two skeletons that had been found under the staircase near the White Tower were examined. And the amazing thing was that one of the skulls,

There were actual marks on the bone that most certainly could not have been done by a pillow. There's every possibility that they could have been done by a large hand held over the nose and of the mouth. But of course, we'll never really know what happened because those two skeletons have been reinterred in Westminster Abbey and we'll stay there. forever. I personally believe that it was Henry the seventh that had the princes murdered. Henry Tudor had a very, very weak and illegitimate claim to the throne of England. He knew that the princes, of course, had a much stronger claim.

And so if he defeated Richard and killed him in battle, if the princes were still alive, then they would have had a much stronger claim. And a fascinating story is that Richard the third had the boys declared illegitimate and the other children of Edward IV. But as soon as King Henry the 7th took the throne, he had all of Edward IV's children legitimised. Now, the two boys were dead, but one of Edward's daughters, Elizabeth of York, was still alive, and Henry married her.

thus securing his children as being legitimate heirs for the throne. And that's why he did it. But of course the boys were dead, and so they were out of the way. What you have to remember is that history is always written by the victor, and Henry the 7th won the Battle of Bosworth. Richard III died. Could Henry the 7th have ordered the murder of the princes? With them out of the way, it would certainly have strengthened his claim to the crown.

Pathologist and forensic psychologist, Dr. Kieran O'Keefe. There's a certain type of person that would indulge in long-term planning to remove any obstacles by people in their way in terms of, you know, getting the power or ascendancy that they want. So in Henry's particular case, what we're dealing with is somebody who is a psychopath, who has indulged in long-term planning to ultimately get rid of people who are in his wife. There's a lack of empathy or sympathy for those particular individuals. He's used lying and deceit to get what he wants. But also there might be kind of a cunning manipulation that he's used.

In getting rid of the princes, if that theory is right, what he might actually have been doing is getting rid of them first to lay suspicion on Richard, and therefore get rid of Richard in that way, rather than having to commit three murders. Andrew Rose is a former lawyer with years of experience in the courts of law and royal tribunals. Andrew the 7th certainly stood to benefit from the absence of other claimants to the throne or people who were perhaps perceived of a better claim to the throne than he had.

He would certainly have had a motive for ensuring the permanent disappearance of these two boys. These days, such a disappearance couldn't go unremarked the papers and the press, the media be full of it, so there would be a human cry to see if they could find the... the remains, Richard III's time, as I understand it, they simply disappeared and wasn't immediate to give the attention to the situation at that time. So, of course, it was a whole different situation. Tracy Borman is chief historian at historic royal palaces. She believes that Richard III was behind the disappearance of the princes. The mystery of what happened to the princes in the tower is one of the most controversial subjects in history. The

The princes were Edward and Richard. They were the sons of King Edward IV. And when he died, the elder Prince Edward was still a minor. So his uncle Richard became Lord Protector. He took the princes into the tower and they disappeared soon afterwards. It was said they'd been murdered at Richard's orders. He became king shortly afterwards. But there were various other suspects in the case.

Henry the 7th, the future Tudor King, had a very very very interested interest in seeing that those boys never saw the light of day again. But for me, Richard III was really the prime suspect. He had the most to gain from the deaths of his nephews. Only if they were out of the way would he be recognized as king. According to the most popular theory, the boys were murdered in their sleep. Sir James Tyrell was dispatched by Richard to go and smother them with pillows as they slept. And that has gone down as the most popular theory.

Sir James Tyrell was an English knight and trusted servant of Richard III. While under interrogation for treason during the reign of Henry the 7th, he's reported to have confessed to the murder of the princes. He was eventually apprehended in a French fortress, brought to London, imprisoned in the tower and executed by Henry the 7th. He was a master of Richard's horse, which was in itself quite a prestigious position in Richard's household. I think that Richard went for him not necessarily because he was a violent man, but because he was aware that he owed bearing and unstinting loyalty to him personally.

So I think he went for people he could absolutely rely on because he knew that this was a crime that would shock not only his own supporters, but the wider population at large if the news ever leaked out. I think Tyrol would have felt guilty. It was an unnatural act to kill innocent children, innocent babes, as the pamphleteers called them at the time. It was, if you like, a triple crime. He killed the legitimate king. He killed a child, and he killed a member of Richard's own family.

So that was, if you like, a three-in-one crime, which I think Tyrell or anyone involved in it, beyond the level of absolute thuggery, would have felt guilty about... about for the rest of their lives. Richard was Lord Protector for his eldest nephew Edward until he came of age and would be able to rule himself. So for as long as his nephew lived, Richard would never have true power and he had real motive therefore in getting rid of Edward and his younger brother so that he himself could become king.

Richard had every motive to do it if he wanted to seize the throne, which he did, did and he had form. He ruthlessly eliminated anyone who stood in his way. At his first counsel, he eliminated his elder brother's closest supporter who helped him gain the throne, Lord Hastings. He then had executed the Duke of Buckingham, who was his henchman in the coup d'etat, which brought him the throne. He executed the uncle of the king on the distaff side, Elizabeth Woodville's brother and son, who

who also stood in his way. Many people think that he also had a hand in the execution here of the last Lancasterian king for Mad Henry the Sixth. At least three chroniclers at the time accused Richard of having personally carried out that deed.

So he had form. I mean, a modern psychiatrist would say he'd had a disturbed childhood. He'd seen his father, his two brothers and his guardian all killed or executed in the Wars of the Roses. So he was certainly a very disturbed individual

Could the horrors that Richard witnessed in his early life have led him to act in such a cruel way? In psychology with any behaviour, there's the argument we're indulging in behaviour either because of a genetic predisposition, which would be nature, or because of how we're brought up and what we witness, which is nurture. And the nature versus nurture debate does apply to criminal behaviour and to killing as well,

or murderers. You can either be that sort of person because of a genetic predisposition or because of socialisation because of how you brought up. But is there enough evidence to implicate Richard in the killing? I think we should decide as a prime suspect in the case. You only have to use the old Latin Maxim Quibono to whom is the benefit to see that he was likely to have had the most direct benefit from it. Henry the Seventh or the future, Henry the Seventh, of course, was out of the picture at the time, although he would himself have had a bit of an interest in seeing that these two possible heirs to the throne were not allowed to live their natural lives. But in terms of the

chronology, it would look as if Richard is in the frame, although, of course, many people would argue that he was innocent of it. If his nephews were murdered, it seems plausible that as Lord protector, Richard would have played a part in it. But what if they weren't murdered? What if one of them escaped? There is one theory about the disappearance of the princes that has grown in popularity in recent years. Nigel Jones is an author and journalist who's researched the history of the Tower of London. Some historians support the theory that the younger of the two princes, Richard, survived his incarceration here in the Tower and was spirited out of the fortress by supporters of his Yorkist dynasty and lived the rest of his life in contrast his

royal birth in humble obscurity. Legend has it that one of the two princes, Richard Duke of York, the younger, actually survived and lived for a few years in Ireland and was reputedly crowned king. During the reign of Henry the 7th, Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel were two years. young men who both claimed to be Prince Richard, the younger of the two princes. Lambert Simnel, who was in fact a young lad from Oxford, who had been trained by a Yorkist supporter to appear to be a king and a prince, and he too achieved a lot of support, was crowned king in Ireland, and brought a Yorkist army over in 1487, and raised a very serious rebellion which was

defeated in a full-blown battle, the Battle of Stokefields, by Henry the Seventh. It was actually the last battle of the Wars of the Roses. Henry the Seventh was quite merciful to Lambert Simnel and gave him a job as a scullion in the Royal Kitchen, so we have no record of anything untoward happening to him after that. He realised Henry did that he'd been a puppet used by the Yorkists against him. It wasn't his fault that had been used in that capacity. Perkin Warbeck, no one knows for sure who he was, but he was probably of noble birth from the area of Hainaut, which is now Belgium and northeast France,

he was put forward and was accepted by the Yorkist court in exile as being a distant claimant of the throne, and he raised a very, very serious rebellion against Henry the 7th. Indeed, he was accepted by the King of Scotland, married Scottish aristocrat, and at various times landed at various places in England to stake his claim. He was eventually captured, brought to the tower, and after more rebellions in his name, Henry the 7th had him executed.

Is it possible that Prince Richard survived and returned to claim his birthright? It does seem pretty unlikely that somebody would simply disappear for some years and then resurface without much explanation for what had happened in the meantime, any explanation that makes any incredible sense, and pop up and be that. person. Of course I think at the time of Richard the third we're talking medieval period people jostling for power. People who might want to gain greater power might want to promote somebody who had some or appear to have some claim to the royal line. These days of course that could pretty simply be dealt with by DNA

testing because nothing of the kind existed in those days. So it might well be that certain people would promote somebody who see seemed to have the necessary qualifications in terms of association with the royal family, a physical appearance, something of that sort, and say that this was one of the lost princes. It seems to be entirely plausible that this could have been done. Other than stories and rumors, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that the princes died at the Tower of London. So when all the theories and evidence are taken into account, what are we left with? The princes, Edward and Richard, officially went missing without a trace.

But it seems unlikely that the two children of royal blood would simply vanish into thin air. So is it possible that to erase his path to the throne of England, Henry the 7th had the boys killed so that no one could refute his claim? Was their uncle Richard III so hell-bent on taking the crown himself, he ordered the murder of his own nephews? Or did one of the princes survive their ordeal in the Tower of London and return as a pretender to the throne? Why do some people refuse to believe that Richard III is guilty? He knew that they had a better claim to the throne than him. He was a scheming man, there's no doubt about it.

He had all of Edward IV's children, and those two of course included, declared by Parliament as illegitimate. And so the next in line for the throne was himself. So did he need to have them killed? If they'd been declared illegitimate, then it was game set and match. It was over. But of course, it was a different kettle of fish for Henry the 7th. Could there be a possibility that Prince Richard escaped? Although the town looks a very formidable fortress that's very difficult to get out of, over the course of its lifetime, many, many people have escaped from the town, got out by one way or another, often by bribing the ill-paid guards and waters in the tower. So it would by no means have been impossible for sympathisers of the Yorkist dynasty

to spirit one of the princes out. Unfortunately, there is no solid or persuadable evidence that this happened at all. The best account that we have, which is dismissed by Richard, supporters as Tudor propaganda is the biography of Richard III written by St. Thomas Moore, who ironically, of course, also ended up in the Tower of London. That gives a pretty accurate account of their fate that they were smothered there and that their bodies were buried under a heap of stones. And indeed, their two skeletons were discovered more than a hundred years later in the reign of Charles II, exactly as Thomas Moore in his book had predicted that they would be found.

Over 500 years have passed since the last known sighting of the princes. They went missing during a time of great upheaval and brutal wars, where anyone in line to the throne was under immediate threat. And it seems that both Henry the 7th and Richard III had something to gain from the disappearance of the two princes. But with most evidence seemingly lost or destroyed, and with history always being written by the victor, where does the blame really lie? It's a fascinating story, but most experts seem to agree that there is virtually no physical

evidence that one of the princes did escape from the tower. Although there were people who came forward in later years claiming to be Prince Richard, it seems that this was most probably a scheme by the Yorkists to overthrow King Henry the Seventh. I think it's much more likely that Richard III did have an illegitimate child who called himself Richard Plantagenet. This was by no means unusual. Medieval monarchs very often had illegitimate children. They were sometimes given earldoms, dukedoms and given honours, or because of the troubled times

of the wars of the roses, this boy would have led a life in obscurity. And I think that's much more likely that an illegitimate son of Richard III grew up and lived, and that this might have been confused with the younger of the two princes in the tower. The suspicion that's been put on Henry is not unfounded. But while he's been, he's not found it, but while he undoubtedly gained from the disappearance of the princes, it seems as though he would have had some account of their whereabouts in the two years before his ascent to the throne, which leaves us with one last theory. So for as long as his nephew lived, Richard would never have true power, and he had real motive, therefore, in getting rid of Edward and his younger brother

so that he himself could become king. There does seem to be an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that Richard may have been behind his nephew's disappearance. It was under his guardianship that they were confined to the Tower of London. While he declared them illegitimate and took the crown for himself, there's no concrete proof that Richard III was guilty of harming the princes. But it seems fair to say that he didn't act in their best interests, and despite taking a solemn oath, failed to fulfill his role as Lord Protector. But what became of the people accused of murdering the princes?

Henry V. 7th reigned successfully for 24 years until his death in 1509. He ended the War of the Roses, maintained peace across the country, and founded the Tudor dynasty. As for Richard, during his time as king, he tried to stabilize the country by attempting to make peace with the Lancasterians. He oversaw the passing of the first laws to be written fully in English, and made major reforms to the law. But he's still seen by many as a crude and wicked man. It seems that his alleged involvement in the disappearance of his nephews will forever follow his name. Is it unfair, or is Richard III, as many people think, responsible for the murder of the princes in the tower? In 2024, extraordinary new evidence was found at the National

archives, offering an additional clue about what happened to the princes in the tower. Tim Thornton, professor of history at the University of Huddersfield, uncovered a will from a 16th century registry, showing a treasured possession, a chain belonging to the eldest prince Edward being left to a member of Sir James Tyrell's family. The will of Lady Margaret Capelle, sister-in-law of Sir James Tyrell's, reads, I bequeathed to my son, Sir Giles, his father's chain, which was young King Edward V. Reports suggest that it would have been a royal chain of office, irreplaceable and eternally connected to its owner, making it priceless.

This evidence asks the question, why did one of his relatives have such a personal item of Prince Edwards in their possession? Unexplored catacombs buried beneath the city, a crumbling castle perched on a mountain peak, a top-secret government bunker, a cursed mansion cloaked in legend. I'm Sasha Auerbach. Join me in Tom Ward every Wednesday and Sunday as we reveal the mysteries and histories behind these abandoned places and ask, where did everyone go? We'll hear from Sasha, who knows the history the best. In fact, there's a very famous book by a chap named Marcus Rediker called The Many-Headed Hydra,

and he talks about pirate ships as an experiment in radical democracy. And me, who knows nothing, erinautical scientists can't quite explain it. They say, we don't actually know how it gets up there. How it stays up? You're just not good at a science. No, there are explanations? There are explanations. It's just plain physics.

Brought to you by Like a Shot, makers of forbidden history. Search for Where Did Everyone Go on your favorite podcast platform.