Noble Blood - The Ghost Princes and Richard III

Episode Date: March 1, 2022

In 1483, the two sons of the late King Edward IV went into the Tower of London, preparing for the older son's coronation. Instead, their uncle, Richard III was crowned, and the two boys were never seen again. The truth of what happened to the "princes" in the tower is one of history's greatest mysteries, and writers have imagined answers for centuries.Support Noble Blood:— Bonus episodes and scripts on Patreon— Merch!— Order Dana's book, Anatomy: A Love Story— Sign up to join Dana on the Mary Shelley Pilgrimage in April Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hi, I'm Iris Palmer, host of the Against All Odds podcast. Every week, I'm sitting down with exceptional people who have broken barriers even when the odds were stacked against them. Like chef Victor Villa of Villas Tacos. You know the Taquero from the Bad Bunny halftime show? It was great.

It was a big moment. It was special. And I felt like I was really representing my family, you know, my brand, my city. I was representing all taqueros. not only of like, you know, the U.S., but of Mexico and beyond, all the taqueros of the world. Listen to Against All Odds on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Welcome to Noble Blood, a production of IHeart Radio and Grimmin Mild from Aaron Manky. Listener discretion is advised.

In 2020, the BBC's History Magazine, History Extra, ran a poll online, asking readers to vote for their favorite historical mystery. There were 20 choices, ranging from the purpose of Stonehenge to the translation of the Voynich manuscript to the final resting place of Jesus Christ's body. With 20 choices, they probably anticipated that it was going to be a close race, one where perhaps a few frontrunners emerged. One of the mysteries wiped the floor with the other choices. More than one in three readers voted for the exact same mystery, which ended up at a final percentage more than double the votes of the mystery that came in second place. The first place winner for the History Extra Poll, the historical mystery that captivated and compelled readers beyond wanting to know what happened to the actual Jesus Christ was this. What happened to the princes in the tower?

In 1483, two boys, the sons and heirs of the late King Edward IV were put into the Tower of London, ostensibly to prepare and keep safe before the older boy, King Edward V's, coronation. But while they were safely behind the walls of the castle fortress, their uncle and the regent, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, announced that new information had emerged, that the boys were actually illegitimate. That summer, the man coronated was actually Richard himself, who became King Richard III. He reigned, briefly, until Henry Tudor bested him in battle and claimed the throne, beginning the Tudor dynasty and, more or less ending the civil war that had raged for decades over the English throne, known as the War of the Roses. People had seen the two princes.

They weren't quite princes, but we'll get to that later, playing outside on the lawns of the Tower of London that summer in 1483. But then their servants were dismissed. The princes were moved deeper within the grounds of the castle to the tower's inner apartments. And then one day, no one ever saw them again. The two doomed princes have become famous over the centuries through depictions in art. Perhaps the most iconic painting of the boys was done in 1878 by Sir John Everett Millay, and it features the boys dressed in all black. They look younger than they would have actually been, 12 and 9. And in the painting, they're almost cherubic under halos of blonde hair, as the painter portrays them their innocence, martyrs of the cruel ambitions of the

grown men around them. Most people probably learn the story of the princes through Shakespeare. In his play Richard III, Shakespeare portrays the king as a scheming, villainous hunchback who lurks in the shadows, waiting for his moment to claim power, and eventually to murder his own nephews in order to secure the crown. The Lord Chancellor Thomas Moore perhaps wrote the most famous historical account of Richard III, similarly portraying him as a murderous tyrant. It was Moore who first named names when it came to the prince's alleged murderers, and he added the compelling details that their young bodies were buried under a staircase in the Tower of London. But it's important to remember that both of those men, Moore and Shakespeare, were writing under the Tudor dynasty.

History is told by the victors, after all, and Richard III was the end of his family's line. When Henry Tudor defeated him in battle and became King Henry the 7th, his claim was pretty weak. There were other older families that really, arguably, should have gotten the crown ahead of him, and his claim was really predicated on the fact that his victory over Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth Field was God's will, anointing him king. His power relied then on Richard III being a villainous usurper. Otherwise, he, Henry the 7th, would be the usurper. And so did Richard III actually order the death of his own nephews in order to secure his crown? or was he manipulated after death into a villain by the Tudor PR machine, when the boys might have been killed by them the Tudors all along?

Or did the boys survive? And run away to live peaceful lives as park rangers in pastoral England? Over the years, the question of the princes in the tower has baffled and fascinated historians and casual hobbyists alike, to the point where factions, have formed and become deeply entrenched, another smaller scale War of the Roses happening among the history set. Here are the facts as we know them,

that two boys came into the Tower of London, the sons of a king who should have been protected and powerful. But power is only as meaningful as one's ability to wield it, and kings are only kings so long as those around them choose to obey them. Whether you believe in murder or Tudor plots or daring escapes, the heart of the matter is a reminder that the divine right to rule is fragile. Kings can be toppled by rumors as well as swords.

Sometimes they're toppled by both. We will likely never find a definite answer to the question of what happened to the princes in the tower. Let me get that out of the way up front, lest you listen to this whole episode, hoping that I'm going to be the one to crack this thing wide open. Of course, I do have my own theory as to what happened, but I also believe that the killing of the two boys was a little less pat and a little less villainous than Shakespeare made it seem. It was an era of kill or be killed, and with the walls closing in on him, Richard III had a deceit. decision to make. I'm Dana Schwartz, and this is Noble Blood. When the man we now know as Richard III was born in 1452, he was almost an afterthought. He was his parents' fourth child and

third son. They already had their heir and their spare. In a family chronicle published when Richard was a child, their only note on the young Richard was that he, quote, liveeth yet. Richard's father was also, confusingly named Richard, the Duke of York, also known as Richard Plantagenet. He was an incredibly important nobleman at the time, inheriting a claim to the throne through his own mother, which made him a key figure in the War of the Roses, which began unfolding in earnest during Richard III's childhood. Entire books can be and have been written about the War of the Roses, but I'm going to do an incredible, brief cursory overview, just to give you an idea of how complicated the seemingly simple question of who the rightful King of England was. So here are the crib notes. We begin with King Edward

III, who reigned until 1377. He had eight sons and five daughters. So, as you might imagine, there's plenty of legitimate and illegitimate royal blood swirling around in people ready to claim royal ancestry. His oldest son is his heir, Edward the Black Prince, and the Black Prince has his own son, the next in line. But then Edward the Black Prince dies, and so when King Edward III dies, the throne goes to his grandchild, Richard II. The problem is Richard the Second is a 10-year-old boy at this point, and when there's a child in charge, especially a child like Richard the second who was speculated to be later either insane or suffering from a personality disorder, other people tend to want to move into that power vacuum. The War of the Roses becomes so-called

by future generations because the two families involved, the Yorks and the Lancasters, both had roses for their family symbols, the white rose of York and the red of Lancaster. Both families were descended from cadet branches of King Edward III. Cadet branches, meaning descended from his younger sons. Personally, I'm a very visual thinker, and I realize how challenging this is to communicate through audio, but bear with me if you can. King Edward III basically has four surviving sons that matter to the story right now. Edward the Black Prince, Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, and Edmund of Langley.

Edward the Black Prince dies, and he has the sickly son who's technically the king, but whose fairly disastrous reign sets up this power vacuum that allows the War of the Roses to happen. So now there are two main family lines vying for the throne. The Lancaster claim comes through Sun Number 3, John of Gaunt. The Yorkist claim is a little more complicated. Their heirs of Sun number 2, Lionel of Antwerp, but through his first, female descendants. Head of the York family was Richard the Third's dad, Richard of York.

On his mother's side, he's a descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, son number two. But on his father's side, he's the grandson of Edmund of Langley, son number four. So it's two claims from sons two and four, which, you know, combined is arguably better than the Lancaster line from son three. arguably, hence the war. The House of Lancaster has a successful early start. Henry IV overthrows the weak, unpopular Richard II in 1399. His son, Henry V, is also king,

but makes the mistake of dying when his only son, Henry VI, is just an infant. Once again, we have a power vacuum, especially as Henry VI's gets older, and begin suffering from mental illness. So the time is ripe for the Yorks to reclaim their throne. Richard the third grows up in this period, watching his father and older brother Edward leading a rebellion against the Lancaster King Henry the 6th.

When Richard's father dies in battle in 1460, it's Richard III's older brother, who becomes Edward IV, who inherits the Yorkist claim to the throne, and who ultimately, wins. Richard's older brother, Edward, is crowned King Edward IV. And bearing one brief period 10 years in where Henry the 6th and his supporters fight back and briefly get him back on the throne, Edward remains king. Our Richard III was a child through all of that. He was eight when his father

was killed in battle and he was sent away the low countries, the Netherlands, for his own safety after that, only returning the next year when his older brother, Edward V. Fourth, was crowned king. As the loyal younger brother of the new king, Richard was given a shiny new title, Duke of Gloucester. He's made a knight of the garter and knight of the bath, and he remains loyal, looking up to his brother and eagerly fighting for his causes. When Richard is 11, he's made commissioner of array. At 17, Richard has given independent command in the military. Aside from the brief hiccup, when Henry the 6th returned to the throne for less than six months, things are going swimmingly for the York family. As Shakespeare put it, immortally, quote, now is the winter of our discontent,

made glorious summer by this son of York. By 1473, Edward V. Fourth was comfortably king, and not just king, a king with two sons, the all-important heir and spare, by his wife, Elizabeth Woodville. The king's marriage was actually pretty controversial, put it mildly. It was actually Edward V. Fourth's choice of bride that pretty much caused that six-month hiccup where he lost the crown. You see, Elizabeth Woodville was from fairly middle rank. She had already been married to a supporter of the House of Lancaster, the enemy house, with whom she had two sons. Her last husband had died in battle, fighting for the Lancasters. People saw the Woodville's as a scheming, social climbing bunch. And when Edward IV chose to marry one of them,

his powerful cousin, the Earl of Warwick, defected to the other side and helped Henry VI with that brief restoration. All of that was probably a little awkward for young Richard III who had grown up under the tutelage of Warwick. It was Warwick who had trained him as a knight and provided for his education.

After Warwick's betrayal and death in battle, Richard married his daughter, which Shakespeare positioned as a pretty cruel and insidious form of revenge, but which a more charitable interpretation to Richard III would point out, also gave him a pretty massive inheritance. At the end of the day, for Richard, loyalty to his brother the king was the most important thing. One of his other brothers had actually chosen the opposite side during the rebellion and was executed for treason when Edward V. Fourth came back to the throne. But Richard

the third had always been loyal, and so he continued to grow in power and prestige at his brother's side, loyal protector of the York family dynasty. It was 1483. After decades of war and thousands of lives lost in bloody conflicts up and down the country, England was finally at peace under King Edward the 4th. But that peace was about to be shattered. April 9th, King Edward IV died suddenly at age 40. We don't know what he died of, whether the illness might have been a sudden case of pneumonia or even malaria or internal hemorrhaging. Whatever it was, it was assumed at the time that the king's excessive lifestyle of eating

and drinking to the extreme didn't help. But whatever the cause, he was dead, and his 12-year-old son was now King Edward. Edward V. Young Edward was living at Ludlow Castle, the seat of power in Wales at the time. His guardian and tutor was his maternal uncle, a man named Lord Rivers. Lord Rivers had practically raised Edward from the time that he was a toddler. It was he, Lord Rivers, the Queen's brother, a Woodville, who taught Edward how to fight with a sword, who secured his tutors, and who became the strongest paternal presence in

his life. And it was he, Lord Rivers, who received the letter a few days after the king's death, who then had to inform young Edward that his father had died and that he was now the king. Word of the king's death had also traveled to the north of England, where the dead king's brother, the future Richard III, had his estates. He immediately returned to his home and changed into black, attending a memorial service for his brother and weeping for his loss. Richard also got notice that the late king's final wishes were to appoint him as protector of the realm. In effect, de facto king until the 12-year-old boy came of age. Richard, now 30 years old, was the logical choice.

He was the most senior royal in the family, and after all, he had spent a lifetime in military service. He was considered an English hero for his leadership in putting down rebellions for his brother. He was loyal and adept at making quick decisions, even when those decisions were hard. And so he began to prepare to head down to London to uphold his brother's final wishes. But then another letter came. This one was from a man named Lord Hastings. Hastings was an old career nobleman, so to speak. one of the dead king's closest friends.

He warned Richard that he needed to get down to London as quickly as possible that the Woodville's, the Queen's family, were closing their claws around power. The Woodville's, once a middling noble family, had had had a meteoric rise when their daughter Elizabeth had married Edward IV, the type of rise that only happens because you're married to the king. They all knew well enough that if Richard, had any real power, even temporarily, their stars would be falling. And so the Woodville's, who dominated the council in London, announced that the coronation for young Edward V would be immediate.

It was a move designed to cut Richard out, and no doubt it stung. After all, he was the king's loyal brother and a celebrated soldier. He had royal blood. And it was the late, King's final wishes that he be Lord Protector until Edward V came of age. Who should be making decisions now, a 12-year-old boy? A family that was basically middle class? By making the coronation immediate, the Woodville's were, in effect, dismissing Richard's position, deciding that Edward V was already fine to rule, with the advice and guidance of his mother and her family, of course.

whatever Richard was thinking at this moment, we can't be sure. I don't really believe the Shakespearean portrayal that he was already plotting his own assent to the throne, but I can't imagine that he figured, probably correctly, that he was the one who should rightfully be in power at the moment. Richard wrote to Lord Rivers, the guardian of the new king, and said, Let's all meet up on the way down to London for the coronation in Northampton, so we can end. enter London together as a sign of unity and strength. Lord Rivers had no reason to doubt Richard, and so he readily agreed. With the new, uncororinated King Edward V, staying nearby at Stony Stratford,

Richard went to meet Lord Rivers. Recall, Lord Rivers is Woodville, the brother of the queen, and so by this point, Richard sees him as one of the people wrestling rightful power away from him. And it's here that Richard III makes a fateful decision, one that will be the first domino that leads to his own destruction. After the men spend the evening cordially enough discussing travel arrangements and plans for the coronation, Richard III has his guards arrest rivers for treason. The next morning, Richard goes to see his nephew, the new king, alone. Richard informs the new king that, unfortunately, his beloved Uncle Rivers was a traitor.

The charge against him was, if you'll forgive me, in my opinion, a little flimsy. Richard claims that Lord Rivers was responsible for speeding up the death of the late King Edward IV by encouraging his heavy drinking. Young King Edward V is shocked, angry, and maybe a little scared. Though Richard is the boy's uncle, they barely know each other. Edward grew up in London and at Ludlow, and Richard's estates were mostly in the north of England. It was Lord Rivers who basically raised him.

There was one uncle that he trusted and one uncle that he really didn't. But what choice did he have at that point? Richard informed the boy that it was time to go down to London for his coronation. I'm sure Edward was thinking something along. the lines of, well, I'm going to become king, and it's nothing I won't be able to straighten out with the rest of my family when I get to London. But now the power has shifted in Richard's favor. When he arrives in London with the young king and word of the Woodville Lord River's supposed treason, Richard is finally able to be officially appointed Lord Protector, at least until Edward V's coronation,

which is set for June 22nd, seven weeks away. Those seven weeks become a ticking clock. Richard has raised the stakes, and if he wants to hold on to power, he needs to work quickly. It's at this point that Richard has the young King Edward V placed in the Tower of London. Now that sounds a little bit more sinister than it was. The Tower of London now is most famous for being a prison, but it was also a royal residence and it was tradition for a king to stay there the night before his coronation.

But from this point on, Edward is more or less under house arrest by his uncle Richard. Edward will never leave the grounds of the Tower of London again. Edward's mother, Elizabeth Woodville, the Dowager Queen, flees to Westminster Abbey, sanctuary with her other children, her daughters and her other son, a nine-year-old boy named Richard. Meanwhile, the elder, Richard III, is trying to shore up his power. He knows full well that the second

that the young King Edward V is coronated, he's going to revert back to full Woodville control. Richard grows increasingly paranoid, feeling trapped into a corner as the royal council, still dominated by Woodville's, keeps blocking his moves. Richard attempts to put Lord Rivers, still imprisoned, on trial for treason,

and he also tries to get the young Richard, the second, quote-unquote, prince, into the Tower of London for, quote-unquote, safekeeping. Richard III fears that even his once-close ally, Lord Hastings, has betrayed him and has begun working with the Woodville's to undermine his power. With just nine days left until Edward V's coronation,

Richard calls a small council meeting at the Tower of London. and to everyone's surprise, he has Lord Hastings arrested. Lord Hastings is brought outside and executed in the yard that afternoon on a makeshift chopping block, killed illegally without a trial. For staunch defenders of Richard, this killing of Lord Hastings is, at least the way I see it, one of those real sticking points that looks bad. It was a move made almost certainly out of fear and paranoia and desperation,

but it was also an illegal execution without a trial of one of the most respected nobleman in the country, one of the late king's closest friends. Richard just gave his enemies the fuel that they'll need later on when they'll try to paint him as an outright villain. But for now, Richard has made his power and his ruthlessness known, and through the archbishop, he more or less forces Elizabeth Woodville to release her younger son into Richard's custody in the Tower of London, still at this point under the pretense

of preparing for his older brother's coronation. Now Richard has both princes in his custody in the tower. I think now is as good a time as any just to clear something up. Technically, neither of them were actually princes when they were in the tower. One of them was a king, even though he was not coronated yet, he was still King Edward V, and the other was a Duke, young Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. But people call them the princes, the princes in the tower, so for clarity, that's sometimes how I'll refer to them. But whatever their titles, now that they were in Richard's control, the pieces were in place for him to make a big move. out of nowhere a bishop comes forward and announces that, actually, the late King Edward

the 4th's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid because he had already been pre-contracted to another woman, and by law at that time, pre-contracts with witnesses were as good as marriage. The bishop who came forward claimed that he had been the one who performed the earlier ceremony back before he was a bishop. He was promoted under Edward I. which some people see as a sign that his claim was true. Maybe Edward the 4th promoted him to keep him quiet, and he only felt safe coming forward after the king's death. But unfortunately, we have no real tangible proof on either side. The woman, Edward V. Fourth, had allegedly been contracted to, Eleanor Butler, had already passed away. The streets of London were buzzing with the

gossip, and, true or not, the timing could not have been more convenient for Richard. If the king's marriage was invalid, his children were illegitimate and ineligible to become king. Well, then, who should rule instead? I think then it has to be the late king's brother, Richard. A petition arrives for him, nobles and commoners, asking Richard to be king, and he, dramatically hesitates for a moment, theatrically, before humbly agreeing to do his duty. On July 6, 1483, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, is crowned King Richard III. Richard's nephews, the quote-unquote princes, were seen playing on the lawns later that summer. But then their servants were dismissed.

they were moved to apartments deeper within the castle's compound, and though some claimed to see them at the windows, gazing out, by autumn of 1483, nobody ever sees young Edward or young Richard again. King Richard III has a short reign, although not as enemies retroactively portray it, not in unsuccessful or unpopular reign. contemporaries actually seemed to approve of him. But support grew both in England and abroad for the exiled Henry Tudor,

who had a claim to the throne through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, who was a Lancastrian, the great-granddaughter of John Gaunt, that third surviving son of Edward III. Henry Tudor faced Richard in combat during the Battle of Bosworth Field, and though they say that Richard got within a sword's length of Henry Tudor, Tudor, eventually Richard was surrounded and knocked to the ground. It's here that Shakespeare imagined that Richard uttered the immortal line, My kingdom for a horse.

Richard was killed, according to legend, by a Welshman who delivered such a violent blow with a pole axe that Richard's helmet was driven through his skull. In actuality, Richard probably just lost his helmet in battle, but we'll get to that. a little bit later. Richard was dead and Henry was crowned King Henry the 7th. As a sign of unity and to strengthen his claim to the throne, Henry married the young Elizabeth of York, the sister of those princes in the tower. Because Henry's claim was through the Lancasterian side and Elizabeth was a York, he was symbolically uniting the feuding houses of the War of the Roses, and he established a new house, the Tudors,

with the symbol of a combined white and red rose. It was during the Tudor reign that the stories really began to emerge about the evil scheming Richard III, who killed his own innocent little nephews to take the crown for himself. The truth that Henry and his supporters wouldn't really like to admit out loud is that it was pretty convenient for him too that those princes were. were gone. If they were alive, he would basically have no claim to the throne. Even centuries later, we can't help but be fascinated and compelled by the image of the

would-be king and his younger brother, these angelic, blonde boys, gazing out of a window like ghosts. Innocents who were victims of ambition or, who maybe, went on to live a life that we can only speculate about. Because the mystery of the disappearance of the princes is still unanswered, and because there were so many layers of gossip and propaganda on both sides, and a seemingly infinite number of people

who benefited from the boy's deaths, it's ripe for conspiracy theories. Not even conspiracy theories necessarily, just theories, and all of them sort of plausible if you squint. So let's get to some of those possible answers. The most commonly accepted answer is that Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews. Not personally, mind you, he wasn't a cartoon villain who went and strangled two children himself while twirling his mustache,

but that the deaths were done on his orders. Thomas Moore, who you have to remember was writing under the tutors, wrote that the murder itself was done by James Terrell, Richard's master of the horse, and that he was aided by two men named Miles Forrest and John Dighton. According to Moore's account, the two boys were suffocated and buried at the bottom of a flight of stairs, and then later moved.

It's also possible that the murders were done by someone loyal to Richard, but not on his exact orders. Maybe a, will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest situation? Unfortunately, I know it's not exciting, but I personally do think that this is a situation where the most boring answer is probably the right one. After Richard was crowned,

he went on a tour of the country as a show of strength to show the people that there was a solid king in charge. While he was away, his guards thwarted an attempt to spring the princes from the tower. The conspirators were going to set fires around the tower and escape with the boys in the chaos. The plan, as I said, was thwarted, but probably made it very clear to Richard that as long as the two boys were alive, and even though they had been officially declared illegitimate, they were still a threat. There were always going to be people who thought that they were the rightful kings,

and there were always going to be enemies of Richards who would want to use them as pawns. Plus, of course, even 12-year-old boys eventually grow up to be men, men who can gather supporters and fight for a rightful claim to the throne. Even if Richard did order the death of his nephews, I think it's worth realizing that he probably didn't see himself as a monster. Richard had grown up during the War of the Roses, and he saw firsthand how bloody and deadly it was when the claim to the crown was contested or when a weak child king was in charge.

Tens of thousands of people died in battle, and civil war made England and the monarchy vulnerable. If Richard did order the murders of his nephews, he probably would have seen it as a necessary evil to protect the peace and stability in the country, and to protect his own sons claimed the throne. These were incredibly bloody times, mistakes were life and death.

Could the princes have died of natural causes? Maybe, but they were two pretty young, healthy boys who mysteriously went missing at exactly the same time. Also, if they had died of natural causes, Richard probably would have wanted that known so people wouldn't rally behind them, and so people would stop accusing him of the nephew murder. A lot of Richard's defenders make the case that it was actually the two-turb. who killed the two princes in the tower. When Henry the 7th overthrew Richard III, Henry would have rightfully recognized that Edward V and his brother being alive

were a major, major threat to his rule. And because he had just overthrown Richard III, he needed a way to make Richard look as evil as possible. It makes sense that if the princes had still been alive in 1485, when Henry the 7th took the throne, killing them and framing Richard would be the ultimate two birds, one stone. It's a really interesting theory

and definitely one that I understand why people believe, but there's not a lot of factual evidence. And I think that there would have been some record, some sightings, anything, if the princes had still been alive by 1485, which I just don't think on the marriage. of evidence that they were. Thanks to historical fiction,

particularly the incredibly popular work of Philippa Gregory, there's also a very popular theory that the deaths were actually the work of Henry the 7th's powerful mother, Margaret Beaufort, who manipulated the situation while Richard was still king. Again, it's a fantastic story that this woman saw the opportunity to frame Richard and rally the cause around her own son,

while at the same time eliminating the people who would be in line for the throne ahead of him. But we don't really have any actual evidence of this beyond a good story. It's fun, but, you know, the princes under Richard were heavily, heavily guarded, and though Margaret Beaufort could have, in theory, bribed the very loyal guards, it's almost impossible to believe that she could have offered anything that the sitting king couldn't have offered. No one could have predicted that Henry the 7th would have been the one to best Richard III and become king himself. Personally, I think this is a question of hindsight being able to show us things that Margaret couldn't possibly have known at the time. You would have to believe that this woman was playing four-dimensional chess,

with things playing out in incredibly unpredictable way. And you also have to believe that she was incredibly ruthless, even though contemporary sources actually paint her as a pretty pious lady. But again, I will never knock someone for wanting to believe a good story. Okay, that's not true. There is one story that I do just have to debunk a little bit out of hand. In recent months, a story has gone around the internet, saying that actually the princes survived, and that a series of, quote,

Da Vinci Code-like clues reveal that Edward V escaped the tower to live a private, secret life as a park ranger named John Evans in rural Devon. Those da Vinci code-like clues include an effigy of John Evans having a small scar on his chin that young Edward also might have had, and that Evans on one of the shields in the church is written as, E-V-A-S, which could stand for E-V, get it like Edward V, and then A-S, which they think might refer to the Latin word spelled A-S-A, which means sanctuary, Asa. The church also has a lot of yorkist symbols throughout, including a stained glass window,

depicting the young King Edward V with a bunch of deer nearby, which some see as a clue, because John Evans was a park ranger on Adir estate. It's cool and fun in theory, but again, there is no actual proof. The Yorkist symbols in the church are actually from early in the reign of Henry VIII when there was a moment of Yorkist reconciliation for the sake of unity.

I guess for me it's a question of which is more likely. One, that the princes managed to escape with no one writing or talking about it, or that Richard or Henry had had them safely moved away somewhere, where they would have been free to raise their own army or rally supporters behind them, and that they left behind a series of elaborate riddles about it, or two, that a guy named John Evans got a job as a Parker, and also a church had some Yorkist symbols during a period of reconciliation.

But fundamentally, the mystery and all of the theories all get to the heart of why the missing princes have spawned such passionate debate. Because there are so many unknowns, people love coming up with stories. And because it's such a dramatic and bloody saga with so many suspects, with these compelling, innocent victims, people are going to keep coming up with stories. And we'll probably never be able to prove anyone right or wrong with any absolute certainty. In 1674, when King Charles II was having some renovations done to the Tower of London, two workmen digging under a staircase found a wooden box which contained two small human skeletons.

Because of the history written by Moore, it became widely assumed that the bodies were those of the princes, buried under the staircase, even though Moore's account did say that the bodies were later moved after they were buried there. Still, Charles II had the remains interred in a white marble sarcophagus in Westminster Abbey, giving them the proper royal burial to which they were entitled. Transcribed from the Latin, the inscription on their grave reads, Here lie the relics of Edward V, King of England, and Richard Duke of York. These brothers being confined in the Tower of London, and there stifled with pillows, were privately and meanly buried by the order of their perfidious uncle Richard the usurper,

whose bones long inquired after and wished for, after one hundred and ninety-one years in the rubbish of the stairs, those lately leading to the chapel of the White Tower, were on the 17th day of July 1674 by undoubted proofs discovered being buried deep in that place. Charles II, a most compassionate prince, pitying their severe fate, ordered these unhappy princes to be laid amongst the monuments of their predecessors, 1678, in the 30th year of his reign. A little dramatic, but it communicates the message. In 1933, those remains were exhumed and re-examined,

and studies confirmed that the bones within the two, were, in fact, the remains of two children of appropriate ages. But that was 1933. The scientific methods used were shaky at best, and there was, of course, no DNA testing. The Church and Queen Elizabeth II have both made their wishes clear that the bodies not be reexhumed for DNA testing, imagining that it might be difficult to come up with anything conclusive, that it would be destructive to the bodies in Westminster Abbey, and that it would set a bad precedence. Personally, I'm hoping that when Charles becomes king, he insists upon it just out of sheer curiosity. The truth is, the question of the murder of the princes in the tower has become such a contentious

debate, with so many people so deeply entrenched in their beliefs, that I think even if the testing came back saying those bodies were the princes, even if we were the princes, even if we had a handwritten confession from someone found, I doubt the case would actually be settled. There are stories to be told and mysteries still to be explored. That's the story of Richard the Third's rise to power, but keep listening after a brief sponsor break to hear a little bit more about Richard's more recent history. I'm Iris Palmer and my new podcast is called Against All Odds and that's exactly what the show is about, doing whatever it takes to be the odds. Get ready to hear from some of your favorite entrepreneurs and entertainers as they share stories about defying expectations, overcoming barriers, and breaking generational patterns.

I'm talking to people like award-winning actress, producer, and director, Eva Longoria. I think I had like $200 in my savings account and my mom goes, what are you going to do? And I was like, I'll figure it out. We got a one-bedroom apartment for like $400 a month and we all could not afford. Like, I was like, how am I going to make $100 a month? I'm opening up like I've never before. For those of you who think you know me from what you've seen on social media,

get ready to see a whole new side of me. Listen to Against All Odds with Iris Palmer as part of the My Cultura podcast network, available on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. If you are a founder or a freelancer or the friend who always says, hey, you know what if I started that?

This is for you. I'm telling you I had nothing to my name. I didn't know a single person in New York. And somehow I'm dressed by Oscar de Lorenta walking down that red carpet. This month, we sit down with entrepreneurs and creators who actually did it, who turned the scary leap into a business, a paycheck, and a life they are proud of. Direct center of our happiness or our regrets is whether or not we're taking action on the things that matter to us. They're not selfish.

They're so important. They actually lead to our greatest contributions because when we're living fulfilled, we actually show up better everywhere. We lead better. We're better friends. for better relationships and collaborators and all those things because we have passion about the things we're doing. If you're trying to build something of your own this year,

join us in these conversations that will make you braver and smarter with your money. Listen to Dos Amigos as part of the Michael Tutta podcast network available on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. On September 12th, 2012, an incredible discovery was made. The University of Leicester, working with the amateur historian, Philippa Lange,

Langley announced that a skeleton that they had found in a dig underneath a parking lot was quite possibly the remains of Richard III. Subsequent DNA tests confirmed it. After hundreds of years, they had found Richard the 3rd in a parking lot. Richard had been defeated in battle, and so his corpse was paraded around by his enemies, until he was finally buried, quickly, and without a shroud or marker, near the choir of Greyfriars Church in Leicester in 1485, in a place of honor near the front of the church, but with no pomp or ceremony. During the dissolution of the monasteries under King Henry the 8th, Greyfriars Church was demolished and the sight of it became lost over time,

until it wasn't. Through analysis of the skeleton, they found that Richard III did have scoliosis, although he wasn't the hunchback that Shakespeare made him out to be. And they found out that he was most likely killed by a violent halberd wound to the exposed base of his neck in battle that probably left his brain visible. Richard III was reburied in Leicester Cathedral. Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor who had played Richard in the television, The Citizen Show The Hollow Crown was there to read a poem.

It's wild to imagine that a man can be a king and still somehow get lost and end up beneath a parking lot. They found him under an actual parking spot. Richard III was under a spot that was reserved, and it had been painted just a few years earlier with the letter R. Noble Blood is a production of IHeart Radio and Grimmin'Mild from Aaron Manky. The show is written and hosted by Dana Schwartz. Executive producers include Aaron Manky, Alex Williams, and Matt Frederick. The show is produced by Rima Ilkeali and Trevor Young. Noble Blood is on social media at Noble Blood Tales,

and you can learn more about the show over at Noble Blood Tales.com. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Hi, I'm Iris Palmer, host of the Against All Odds podcast. Every week, I'm sitting down with exceptional people who have broken barriers, even when the odds were stacked against them. Like chef, Victor Villa of Villas Tacos. You know the Taquero from the Bad Bunny halftime show?

It was great. It was a big moment. It was special. And I felt like I was really representing my family, you know, my brand, my city. I was representing All Taqueros, not only of like, you know, the U.S., but of Mexico. and beyond all the takeros of the world. Listen to Against All Odds on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast, guaranteed human.