The mystery of the Princes in the Tower is one of Britain’s most famous cold cases, and one of its most emotive. As a story, the narrative of two boys – the 12-year-old Edward V, and his younger brother, the nine-year-old Richard, Duke of York – who went missing from the Tower of London allegedly murdered at the instigation of an “evil” uncle hungry for kingship is rich in possibility.

The atmospheric setting, poignant heroes and, of course, all-important villain were famously seized upon by Shakespeare for an appreciative Tudor audience. The princes appear in a long line of ghosts that come back to haunt King Richard III before the Battle of Bosworth.

As the battle’s victor, Henry Tudor, was crowned King Henry VII, it was in the Tudors’ interest to paint Richard as a villain. In short, history is written by the winners. And it is possible that, as a story, the case of the Princes in
the Tower is too good to be true.

“We have to remove the Game of Thrones hysteria that’s forever been attributed to this mystery, and Richard’s reign, and look at it from a wholly critical and contemporary perspective,” warns Philippa Langley. Heading up the Missing Princes Project, which was launched last year, Langley is best known for her success in conceiving and commissioning the search for Richard III that ended in a car park in Leicester in 2012. She has been researching the life of Richard III for over 20 years. What drew her to this period of history? “It was originally the incredible story and complex characters,” she says. “I couldn’t understand why Richard’s historical story had never been placed centre stage on our screens. And how neglected the study of this period of history has been.

“For centuries it’s been a merry-go-round of repeat, repeat, repeat, without key questions being asked and sadly only a very few writers are doing this today.” The Missing Princes Project, she explains, employs “forensic analysis of the people and events surrounding the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV”.

In view of the “merry-go-round of repeat, repeat, repeat”, it is interesting to look at what we can be reasonably sure of, including a few of the key dates.

April 1483: King Edward IV dies
The princes were the offspring of King Edward IV and his wife, the “commoner” Elizabeth Woodville. The former, who had come to the throne during the Wars of the Roses, had restored some stability to the country, but died suddenly on 9 April 1483.

His eldest son was proclaimed Edward V at Ludlow and his father’s brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was named protector of the realm, though Woodville and her supporters tried to replace him. As Edward V travelled towards London, he was met by Richard and escorted to the capital, where he was lodged at the Tower of London by the King’s Council for his coronation. In June 1483, he was joined by his brother, the Duke of York.

June 1483: A secret marriage revealed
A crucial turning point in events was the revelation of Edward IV’s secret marriage – or betrothal (though they were one and the same in medieval English Canon Law) – to Eleanor Talbot, the daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury. The marriage was revealed on 9 June 1483, by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Robert Stillington, who told the royal council that preparations for the coronation of Edward V could not proceed because he was illegitimate – because he, Stillington, had married Edward IV to Eleanor Talbot.

As it was alleged that their father had married someone else before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, the boys were declared illegitimate and ineligible to succeed to the throne. As next in line, Richard, who was petitioned to be king, as Langley points out, was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 6 July 1483.

Of course, the convenient timing of this announcement looks suspicious for Richard III, not least because Eleanor, who died in 1468, wasn’t around to confirm or deny the marriage, or “pre-contract”. How likely is it that the secret marriage took place? “Very likely,” says Langley. “It was recognised in an act of parliament.” The act of 1484, known as Titulus Regius, was repealed and destroyed by Henry VII. Again, suggesting, of course, his own agenda.

July 1483: Royal Progress
In the summer of 1483, the newly crowned Richard went on royal progress. “It will have been important for him to show himself to the local people and gentry, and receive their allegiance,” explains Langley. “We can have some level of certainty that the princes disappeared during the royal progress based on analysis of the contemporary source material… From this analysis, the likely timeframe for the disappearance of the princes was either towards the end of July when Richard III and the royal progress were in the Thames Valley, or around mid-September when King Richard was in York.”

Only contemporary and near contemporary foreign sources write about the boys disappearing or being killed on or before the coronation of Richard III, with one even saying that they were murdered while their father was still alive. Certainly, by late September, rumours of the princes’ death were spread by rebels led by Richard’s former ally, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

1557: Thomas More’s account of Tyrell’s confession
Of course, the next highly significant date in Richard’s reign is 22 August 1485, when he was killed at the Battle of Bosworth, but, in terms of Richard’s legacy, it is worth considering the account of Tudor loyalist Thomas More, published in 1557, of a supposed confession made by Sir James Tyrell – an English knight and the princes’ assassin in Shakespeare’s play – at the time of his death in 1502, during the reign of Henry VII.
Of this confession, Langley responds, “I have to say, what confession and where is your evidence for it?
This story relies on Thomas More’s account, but... no confession by Tyrell exists, with no record of it being made, including by Henry VII’s official court historian, Polydore Vergil, and his biographer, Bernard Andre.”

She adds: “If a confession had been made, this was an astonishing coup for Henry VII. He could now proclaim Richard III as the murderer of the princes and remove the threat of any further pretenders to his throne. But Tudor does nothing with it. Indeed he never accuses Richard III of the murder of the princes.

“The supposed confession, from all the research undertaken, appears to be a myth that, disappointingly, has been reported as fact and truth in order to support the traditional view of murder, and by Richard III. But we cannot begin any investigation, historical or otherwise, with an end position and then work backwards from it.”

1674: Skeletons at the Tower
In More’s account, he states the princes were smothered on their uncle’s orders, secretly buried “at the stair foot”, and then reburied in a “secret” and “better place”. And in the reign of King Charles II, the discovery of two skeletons, when a building in front of the White Tower was demolished in 1674, seemed to confirm the story (by ignoring the second burial). The remains were brought to Westminster Abbey and first buried in the vault of General Monck, with a white marble sarcophagus to house them designed by Sir Christopher Wren.

The Latin inscription, confirming the popular version of the story, 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.”

The urn was opened on 6 July 1933 and, after examination, pronounced as belonging to two boys of the right sort of age, and then re-sealed. But important new scientific evidence, in John Ashdown-Hill’s book The Secret Queen, which has recently been updated, “backs up the latest research to show that the bones in the urn at Westminster, which are said to be those of the so-called Princes in the Tower, probably do not belong to them,” says Langley.

This confirms her own conclusions: “In my talks I go into the evidence for this in some detail,” she says. “For example, the depth at which the remains were found strongly suggests they are of Iron Age, Roman, Saxon or Norman antiquity. Secondly, modern scientific analysis of the 1934 report on the remains is highly suggestive of the remains being female, and likely consisting of the co-mingled remains of more than two individuals.”

At the moment the Missing Princes Project does not consider the “bones in the urn” a major part of the investigation (which is perhaps a good thing as the Church of England has refused requests to carry out forensic tests on them). “Moreover, new research is revealing important evidence regarding the potential to identify the sons of Edward IV that does not require exhumations. It is hoped this new research will be revealed towards the end of the year,” Langley adds tantalisingly.

2015: The Missing Princes Project is launched
“I began the project last summer with three key lines of investigation, it now has over 50,” says Langley. “Following the launch at Middleham, the Missing Princes Project grew rapidly to over 30 member researchers. We currently have a team of 54 who are undertaking archival investigations at key locations in the UK and overseas. It’s an extraordinary start but we need more willing volunteers to become involved so that we can cover as many of the key locations as possible.”

Although there is “a named individual who is currently at the top of the list for the disappearance”, Langley is unable to say who the prime suspect is. Of course, I have to ask, is Richard off the hook? “Your question reveals so much about the traditional history,” Langley says. “Richard III is portrayed as the guilty party, yet there is no evidence to support either a murder in the tower, or Richard’s culpability. This is why the project is called the ‘Missing’ Princes Project.

“It’s time we all began speaking about this abiding mystery in this way. This is not to get Richard or anyone else ‘off the hook’ but to put it firmly into context for the very first time.

“So far for the specialist investigators involved, Richard III is not the prime suspect in any potential murder of the sons of Edward IV; he doesn’t fit the profile. However, with the searches under way we don’t know what neglected archival material may be uncovered; might it change everything we know, might it confirm it? What is exciting is that for the very first time, we’re looking.”

Philippa Langley is the co-author of The King’s Grave: The Search for Richard III and Finding Richard III: The Official Account. For more information see www.revealingrichardiii.com