Do the bones found in the Tower prove Richard III’s involvement in the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower?
Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources
Question: Do the bones found in the Tower prove Richard III’s involvement in the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower?
Question: Do the bones found in the Tower prove Richard III’s involvement in the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower?
Source 1: Thomas More: The History of King Richard III (1519)
Published in 1519, this first biography of Richard is an unfinished account of his life and establishes the narrative of Richard's involvement in the princes’ deaths1. Much of the book centres around their fate, making it a crucial source for this investigation. Significantly, it was written during Henry VIII’s reign, reflecting the Tudor propagandist line of Richard the evil tyrant2. As a member of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s household, who deeply despised Richard, More probably overstated rumours of Richard’s role in the disappearance of the Princes to gratify his patrons' antipathy towards him3.This is reflected in More’s narrative, known more for its dramatic writing style than its historical accuracy, the former chairman of the Richard III Society describing it as “not history, but a literary exercise in the dramatic presentation of villainy”4 5. Such purpose is further reflected in content describing Richard as “malicious, wrathfull, [and] envious”, betraying clear subjective bias 6.Approximately one- third of it contains speeches invented by More for his characters which, though based on authentic source material, presents a tyrannical view of Richard 7. Furthermore, More’s history has its obvious flaws: some names and dates are incorrect or missing, and some of its content results from “divining upon conjunctures”8. Nevertheless, much of what More writes is substantiated by contemporary sources of the time like Mancini which More didn’t have access to, and, being a high member of Henry VIII’s court, More was able to obtain first-hand information from courtiers who had been alive during Richard’s reign, leading to Alison Weir arguing ‘there’s little reason to doubt its overall authenticity” 9 10.
Source 2: Paul Murray Kendall: Richard III (1956)
Runner up for the National Book Award in 1957, Kendall was praised for his “brilliantly successful [research], combining sound scholarship with literary distinction”11. Described by A.L.Rowse as ‘the best biography of Richard III,' Kendall sought to "portray what manner of man Richard was and what manner of life he led,’ helping fill in details about his character and motivations to truly assess his involvement in the disappearance of the princes12. By relying on “source material contemporary with Richard’s day”, Kendall casts doubt on Richard’s role.13 Nonetheless, his complete disregard of Tudor accounts severely limits his availability of sources 14. Kendall’s attempt to educate a general audience hinders depth as he spends much time providing context. Argumentation for the princes’ disappearance, however, remains easy to follow as he specifically devotes an entire section to the case. Nonetheless, with the mystery being over 500 years old, Kendall relies on his own interpretations of the sources, especially that of the bones, in order to assess motive15. Desmond Seward describes Kendall as a ‘romantic apologist’, who bases his interpretations on conjecture16. Yet, with the examinations of the bones found in the Tower of London twenty years prior, Kendall presents new evidence which sources like More’s weren’t able to access17.
Section B: Investigation
In 2012, the skeleton of Richard III was found in a Leicester car park, DNA analysis proving it to be Richard’s “beyond reasonable doubt”18. Richard’s supporters said that they hoped the discovery would force academics to “re-examine history”, especially with the many ‘false claims’ surrounding him19. The bones’ discovery thus reignited debate about his role in the most controversial rumour surrounding his reign; the disappearance of the Princes. Ironically, nowadays this debate centres on a separate collection of bones found in the Tower of London in 167420. Traditionalists have maintained that Richard stands convicted of the crime, as asserted by Tudor historians and blazoned by Shakespeare’s melodrama. Revisionists, like Kendall, insist that the case against Richard is fraudulent, have either declared the case an enigma or blamed someone else21. Equally, none of the contemporary evidence, being based on the assumption that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the princes, conclusively proves his guilt22. The key therefore to answering this question is the analysis of forensic evidence presented by the bones since this is the only physical evidence available that, unlike contemporary sources, cannot be tampered with and it’s significant that they were found in the Tower, where the princes were under Richard’s protection23.
Dr Starkey argues that although the bones on their own don’t prove Richard’s involvement, the location where they were found does, since their discovery corroborates More’s account of the burial of the Princes25. The bones were where he had described them to be “at the stair foot, meetly deep under the ground”26. The fact that this information came from More, who served Henry VIII as Lord High Chancellor of England, gives its historical weight as the authority he represented would indicate that the information was accurate27.Being a valued member of court, More also had access to sources unavailable to the general public, and could interview members of court that were in the Tower during the princes’ disappearance, like John Argentine, the physician to Edward V28. The burial place is also significant, since this was a private passage for the King 29. Thus, the bones wouldn’t have been able to be buried without Richard knowing, as he frequently used the passage30. Furthermore, as argued by Starkey, “there would’ve been no possibility that Richard wouldn’t have known if someone else were involved in the murder”31. This was because the Tower’s constable, Sir Brackenbury, one of his most devoted followers, wouldn’t grant access to the Tower without Richard’s authority32. Richard was therefore the only person capable of allowing murder to take place in the Tower. Ultimately the bones, if they are the Princes, prove that Richard had to be involved simply due to the location of the burial site33.
Furthermore, the forensic evidence from 1933 highlights the likelihood that the bones are the Princes34. The bones were examined by Dr Tanner and Professor Wright. Using dental evidence they estimated that the elder child was twelve and the younger nine to eleven, the ages of the princes when they disappeared35. This evidences that the Princes would’ve died during Richard’s reign, when he was the only one able to access them.
Furthermore,
the pre- molar teeth for both sets of bones were missing, a condition
known as hypodontia, which Jean Ross, the senior lecturer in anatomy at
the Charing Cross Medical School, considered to be unusual for this set
of teeth36. Crucially that same condition was found in the skeleton of
Anne de Mowbray, the Princes’ second cousin37. Hypodontia is genetic in
origin and has a prevalence of 2-8% 38.The chance that the both bones
and a blood relative of the Princes had the same genetic condition is
extremely low, indicating that the bones shared a blood relationship to
somebody that the Princes did too. This is valuable since in comparison
to sources like More’s, medical evidence can’t be tampered with and thus
provides unbiased evidence, which is crucial for this investigation.
The report concluded, if the bones were of the Princes “by no
possibility could either have been alive on August 22nd, 1485”39. This
would confirm that at the time when Richard was responsible for them,
the princes were dead.
However, Kendall questions a number of assumptions raised by traditionalists. In regard to the site where the bones were found, he argues that traditionalists who view More’s statements as the truth overlook More’s subsequent statement that the bones were later moved to a “better place”40. According to Kendall, if one were to believe More, the skeletons cannot have been those of the Princes41. Nevertheless, it’s difficult to invalidate More based on one statement. It’s also unclear what a ‘better place’ refers to; a better place wouldn’t even necessarily mean that the bones left the Tower. Furthermore, with regard to forensic evidence there are a few issues with the conclusions. These were founded on the basis of the Princes having been suffocated, yet as later forensics show “blood stains on the skull or jaw can’t support suffocation”42. Not only would this call into question the validity of the forensic research, but also that of More as he recorded how, under Richard’s orders, the princes were “smothered to death”43.
However, Kendall questions a number of assumptions raised by traditionalists. In regard to the site where the bones were found, he argues that traditionalists who view More’s statements as the truth overlook More’s subsequent statement that the bones were later moved to a “better place”40. According to Kendall, if one were to believe More, the skeletons cannot have been those of the Princes41. Nevertheless, it’s difficult to invalidate More based on one statement. It’s also unclear what a ‘better place’ refers to; a better place wouldn’t even necessarily mean that the bones left the Tower. Furthermore, with regard to forensic evidence there are a few issues with the conclusions. These were founded on the basis of the Princes having been suffocated, yet as later forensics show “blood stains on the skull or jaw can’t support suffocation”42. Not only would this call into question the validity of the forensic research, but also that of More as he recorded how, under Richard’s orders, the princes were “smothered to death”43.
Secondly,
Kendall argues the forensic investigation was conducted on the
unscientific assumption that the bones belonged to the Princes. Wright
looked for evidence that the bones were between the ages of ten and
thirteen and assumed that the bones were those of males44. This
indicates that the conclusions drawn would only substantiate the bones
being the Princes, rather than presenting an unbiased report45.
Nevertheless, as Kendall isn’t a medical expert it’s difficult to assess
if the research was truly ‘unscientific’ based on this specific aspect.
He had to rely on other research to conclude this, which, apart from
suffocation, drew similar conclusions to those of Wright and Tanner.
Most substantially; the bones haven’t been dated and thus could’ve belonged to any historical period46. The princes weren’t the only children who disappeared in the Tower during the “turbulent age” and the white Tower, in which the bones were found, has stood for almost 900 years, during which “many secret bloody deeds have been enacted”47. Similar sets of bones have been found which could equally have been those of the Princes48. However, Kendall fails to recognise that the bones were discovered with “pieces of velvet about them”49. According to the Archaeological Resource Centre in York, velvet was invented in the 1400’s in Renaissance Italy and wasn’t made in England before the sixteenth century. In the 1480’s wearing imported velvet signified a higher rank, not only because of the price but also because of the social conventions50. Thus, the bones found in 1674 must have died in the fifteenth century at the earliest, and as no other pair of royal children had disappeared during the previous 200 years, it’s a fair assumption that these are the bones of the Princes51.
Overall, based on a combination of the forensic evidence, such as hypodontia, and the historical evidence, such as the velvet, and the place where the bones were found, it’s highly likely that the bones belong to the Princes. The bones thus confirm that the princes were dead by the end of 1483, therefore, it’s probable, that they were killed with Richard’s knowledge in 1483. Though Richard wasn’t present at the time of their disappearance, because the princes disappeared in the Tower and their bones were found there, he had to have known about it and thus per the question must have been involved.
Most substantially; the bones haven’t been dated and thus could’ve belonged to any historical period46. The princes weren’t the only children who disappeared in the Tower during the “turbulent age” and the white Tower, in which the bones were found, has stood for almost 900 years, during which “many secret bloody deeds have been enacted”47. Similar sets of bones have been found which could equally have been those of the Princes48. However, Kendall fails to recognise that the bones were discovered with “pieces of velvet about them”49. According to the Archaeological Resource Centre in York, velvet was invented in the 1400’s in Renaissance Italy and wasn’t made in England before the sixteenth century. In the 1480’s wearing imported velvet signified a higher rank, not only because of the price but also because of the social conventions50. Thus, the bones found in 1674 must have died in the fifteenth century at the earliest, and as no other pair of royal children had disappeared during the previous 200 years, it’s a fair assumption that these are the bones of the Princes51.
Overall, based on a combination of the forensic evidence, such as hypodontia, and the historical evidence, such as the velvet, and the place where the bones were found, it’s highly likely that the bones belong to the Princes. The bones thus confirm that the princes were dead by the end of 1483, therefore, it’s probable, that they were killed with Richard’s knowledge in 1483. Though Richard wasn’t present at the time of their disappearance, because the princes disappeared in the Tower and their bones were found there, he had to have known about it and thus per the question must have been involved.
Section C: Reflection
A challenge I faced was to understand the past given the paucity of objective information. Most contemporary sources are prejudiced against Richard and none indisputably certify Richard as the killer, nor mention the resting place of the Princes52. The lack of 15th documentation forced me to use Tudor accounts like More’s which are misleading and often biased, hostile towards Richard and contradictory. Previous accounts were hidden or destroyed, whilst those proclaiming Richard a tyrant were accepted 53.
The invalidity of history’s understanding through false claims hereby also creates grave danger. More created an image of Richard as a sadistic murderer, arguably the dominant factor in Richard’s legacy, paving the way for dramatists like Shakespeare’s characterisation. We should understand how the way history is told influences perception. Without More’s biography, we may never have known the “deformed and unfinished” tyrant from Shakespeare. The forensic analysis of the bones reflects this, conducted in the assumption that they belonged to the Princes and that Richard orchestrated their murder was, i.e. evidence of arguably historically inaccurate texts influencing not only historians, but also forensic scientists. An issue for historians relying on forensic evidence is that they have to trust the interpretations of experts in another field, meaning they’re unable to form conclusions on their own.
I found that historians, from different periods, disagreed over the same facts, and exhibited political, regional and cultural biases. A problem was identifying which speculative, and difficult to validate, theories, would likely be closes to the truth, taking into consideration not only the ‘selectivity’ in choosing sources, but the omissions, inferences and socio-political background of the historian. Tudor historians, writing after Henry’s ascension were unable to criticise him, and were thus heavily biased, partially incorrect or over-exaggerated.
I therefore focused on the objective scientific evidence of the bones, which also provided a likely burial site, although on their own, the bones cannot definitively prove Richard’s involvement, which isn’t helped from the heaps of competing theories arising from them. Even the chairman of the ‘Richard III Society’ didn’t feel able to provide a conclusion54.
Though the 1933 report adjudged the bones to be most likely those of the princes, this cannot be confirmed until further research, including DNA analysis, is carried out. No age or sex is established from the bones, rendering it difficult to unequivocally assert Richard’s complicity. This raises a question of morality; should the bodies be disinterred again to quell the curiosity of a small body of historians, or is the sanctity of one’s resting place more important?
Endnotes
1. “Appendix I: Who Murdered the Princes?” Richard III, by Paul Murray. Kendall, Fayard, 1956, pp. 1–52.2. “Appendix 2: Tanner.” MYTHOLOGY OF THE 'PRINCES IN THE TOWER', by John Ashdown-Hill, AMBERLEY PUBLISHING, 2020, pp. 223–257.
3. ASHDOWN-HILL, JOHN. MYTHOLOGY OF THE 'PRINCES IN THE TOWER'. AMBERLEY PUBLISHING, 2020.
4. “Chapter 5: The Fate of the Princes .” Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, by A. J. Pollard, Sutton, 2002, pp. 115–143.
5. “Early Stories of Richard III.” Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, by Anthony James Pollard, A. Sutton, 1996, pp. 1–22.
6. Lewis , Matthew. The Survival of the Princes in the Tower . The History Press , 2017.
7. Mackintosh, Eliza. “'Beyond Reasonable Doubt,' Bones Are the Remains of England's King Richard III.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 4 Feb. 2013, www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/remains-of-king-richard-iii- identified/2013/02/04/d79e87b2-6ebb-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html. Accessed 20 Oct. 2020
8. Mancini, Dominic, and C. A. J. Armstrong. The Usurpation of Richard the Third: De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium Libellus. Oxford University Press, 1969
9. More, Thomas, and Richard Standish Sylvester. The History of King Richard III and Selections from the English and Latin Poems. Yale University Press, 1976.
10. “National Book Awards 1957.” National Book Foundation, 6 Mar. 2018, www.nationalbook.org/awards-prizes/national-book-awards-1957/?cat=nonfiction. Accessed 6. July 2020
11. Potter, Jeremy. “To Prove A Villain: The Real Richard III.” Richard III Society – American Branch, 1991, www.r3.org/links/to-prove-a-villain-the-real-richard-iii/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2020
12. Pronay , Nicholas, and John Cox. The Crowland Chroncile Continuations . Sutton Publishing Ltd, 1986.
13. Seward, Desmond. The Wars of the Roses: and the Lives of Five Men and Women in the Fifteenth Century. Constable, 1995.
14. “Sir Thomas More.” Tudor Times, 17 Sept. 2016, tudortimes.co.uk/people/sir-thomas- more-1. Accessed 28 Oct. 2020
15. Williams C. Graham The Trials of King Richard III, BBC, 21 Feb. 1984. BBC
16. “Thomas More's History of King Richard III.” The British Library, The British
Library, 8 Jan. 2016, www.bl.uk/collection-items/thomas-mores-history-of-king-
richard-iii.
17. “Tooth Agenesis.” NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders), 9 Jan. 2019, rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/anodontia/. Accessed 25 Oct. 2020 1018. Unwin, Richard. Westminster Bones: the Real Mystery of the Princes in the Tower . Richard Unwin , 2015.
19. Walker, Elsie. “[Editorial]: The Body of Richard and the Afterlife of
Shakespeare.” Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 2014, pp. 410–413. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43798975. Accessed 25 Oct. 2020. Accessed 14 Oct. 2020
20. Wegemer , Gerard. Thomas More on Statesmanship. Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
21. Weir, Alison. Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. Vintage Books, 2014.
22. Wilkinson, Josephine. The Princes in the Tower: Did Richard III Murder His Nephews, Edward V & Richard of York? Baker & Taylor, 2014.
