Cold Case Reopened: The Princes in the Tower (8 page)

So did this mean that Henry knew for certain that the princes were dead? Henry does not appear to be a gambling man. After years in exile would he really risk everything?
 
Who told him? And how did they themselves know? Or could it have been that the princes were still alive after he won power and that he knew they were dead because he ordered the murder himself?

Of course, the princes could still have been secretly incarcerated in the Tower after Bosworth, believed by the world to be dead. Henry was not averse to keeping prisoners locked up for some time, as can be seen with his treatment of the Earl of Warwick, but this seems highly unlikely. When a new leader takes power, he tends to sweep up and remove all of the mess left by the previous regime. Could this have been what happened all those years ago?

There is one interesting piece of evidence that relates to the Tower of London immediately after Henry's victory at Bosworth. Henry dispatched his trusted aide Sir Robert Willoughby to Sheriff Hutton to escort Elizabeth of York down to London. Once this mission was completed, Willoughby was dispatched again on a slightly more secret and less open mission. This time he was to escort the Earl of Warwick, the son of the executed Duke of Clarence to the Tower of London. Despite Clarence's attainer for treason, his son was a real threat to the new Tudor crown. Henry took this threat extremely seriously (as can been seen from the length of time he kept Warwick imprisoned) and he wanted no risk from failing to secure Warwick's person. Willoughby completed his task quietly and without incident and as such he swept up and removed some of the mess left by the previous regime. It is perfectly plausible that Willoughby was given further instructions that when he arrived at the Tower of London he was to undertake a search for the princes. In fact it would be implausible to suggest that he wasn't given this instruction. We can only assume that he would have been instructed to remove more of Richard's mess if he found them alive.
 

This would have been the perfect time to murder the princes. Willoughby could have done it secretly and the blame could have been firmly laid at Richard III's door. If this is what happened then obviously Henry VII would not have been able to announce with great fanfare that he had found the bodies of the murdered princes as the bodies would still be fresh. Hence it could be argued that his policy of saying nothing about the princes and allowing the rumours about Richard III to grow was a highly intelligent strategy.

The repealing of Titulus Regius wasn't just an Act of Parliament. Henry made a concerted effort to erase the original act from record completely. Orders were issued that every single copy of the original Act should be given up; these copies were destroyed. Even the original Parliament Roll of 1484 was suppressed. So impressive were the attempts to retrieve the copies of the original Act that only the copy in the
Croyland Chronicle
has ever been found. Why did Henry zealously hunt down copies of the Act? Was it so that Elizabeth of York's claim to the throne was never disputed? Or was it that so that memories of the princes were not revived?

Henry never declared publicly that the princes were dead. He undertook no grand public search for the bodies of his young brothers-in-law and he made no attempt to locate a murderer. Instead, the rumour that Richard III had murdered the boys was allowed to grow and fester. It finally resulted in the publication of Thomas More's book
The History of Richard III
. In this book More states that Sir James Tyrell murdered the boys on the orders of Richard III and buried them under the stairs. We now know that bodies were discovered in a location that resembled the description by More.

However, the fact remains that just over two months into his reign, Henry VII made a bold statement, via his Parliament, that the princes were dead. This was years before Tyrell's confession and More's book was written. How did Henry Tudor know for sure?

When researching this book I was surprised that one suspect on my list is never mentioned as a potential suspect in any work by any historian.
 

That person was at the centre of all three of the regimes that this case covers: the Woodvilles being in power immediately after the death of Edward IV; the court of Richard III after he is established on the throne; and the Tudor court after Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth. This would have given this suspect more than enough time to arrange the deaths of the princes, indeed more time than almost any other suspect on my list.

In addition, this person benefits more than any other bar none from the death of the princes.

The person that is never mentioned as the potential murderer is the boys' elder sister, Elizabeth of York.

Why has Elizabeth of York been overlooked for so long? She clearly has a strong motivation for committing the crime and she shows a tendency for manipulative and unscrupulous behaviour.

The death of the princes would immediately make Elizabeth of York Edward IV's heir. As such, her motivation for committing the crime is indisputable. You may argue that that Elizabeth was the boys' sister and would not wish harm on them. However, my experience is that being a close family member of the victim is not an assurance of innocence; in fact it is just the opposite. The police always tend to look towards the family of any victim first when investigating murders, especially in the case of child murders. Make no mistake, as much as historians speak of her kind and gentle nature I can assure you that as the person who benefits the most, she would be one of the first to be interviewed by the police today.
 

When you consider all the close family members of the victims, Elizabeth of York has more to gain than anyone else from their deaths. Their uncle, Richard III, already has his crown and has no immediate benefit from their death. Their mother, Elizabeth Woodville, would gain little other than maintaining her status quo. The boys' other sisters were still firmly behind Elizabeth of York in the pecking order. Elizabeth of York, on the other hand, immediately becomes the heir of the House of York
after their death.
Her marriage prospects improve instantly and there is the potential that she could even take the crown herself. As an investigating officer my eye is always drawn to the person with the most to gain. This person is Elizabeth of York.
 

Elizabeth's behaviour after leaving sanctuary shows her ruthless and ambitious nature. It should be remembered that she was now cut off from her mother who resided away from the court. For the first time she was free from that powerful and possibly overwhelming influence and was free to make her own choices. She would have known that as the heir of Edward IV she would be a great prize on the marriage market. She would also have been fully aware of her own personal claims to the throne. Elizabeth of York grew up watching her mother exert considerable influence on the government of the kingdom; she knew that women could lead. Is it not conceivable that she herself wanted the same power that her mother enjoyed? Don't children always try to live up to and, if possible, go one step further than their parents? Is it not conceivable that she may have wanted to go even further than mother and rule in her own name?

Elizabeth's relationship with Richard III is somewhat complex. It could be said that Richard was driven by lust when he pursued his teenage niece. Numerous reports say that Elizabeth was extremely beautiful and particular praise was made of her large breasts. As a teenage girl with little experience of men, Elizabeth would likely have been flattered by the attention shown to her by an older, powerful, charismatic man. The fact that the present queen was not yet dead brought an element of scandal into the equation. Kings of England were expected to have mistresses; Richard certainly had his own bastard children. Despite this, they weren't expected to be lining up a better long-term match while their present queen still lived. If you consider that the match being planned was with the daughter of your brother and the sister to two boys that many people had already believed that you had killed, then you can imagine the uproar.
 

The paragraph above assumes that Elizabeth of York was nothing more than naive young girl. It assumes, like many historians before me, that she was an innocent victim, hunted down by a lustful older man. But what if that wasn't the case at all? What if she was the hunter and she was simply playing Richard and making him dance to her tune?
 

Her mother's upbringing and influence would surely have had an effect on Elizabeth of York's character. Elizabeth Woodville would not have brought up her daughter to be a shy, retiring wallflower. She would surely have spoken to her daughter about men and how to entice them. If she was as stunning as the reports state, then Elizabeth of York would have already understood the effect she had on gentlemen. What if Elizabeth Woodville had also brought her daughter up to believe that she could be anything that she wanted and have anything that she wanted? What if Elizabeth of York firmly had her eyes on the crown?

Elizabeth of York probably did not truly believe that she could rule in her own name. Even though Salic law did not exist in England, no queen had ever been on the throne. The best route to a crown was to marry the man who wore it. However, as a leading claimant herself who knows what might happen if that man then died? Could she remain on the throne in her own name? With enough loyal figures around her, it would seem quite possible. However, there was still an obstacle in Elizabeth's way – her brothers. While the princes lived, Elizabeth of York's
value
was not as strong as if she were Edward IV's heir. Elizabeth would understand that completely. What if Elizabeth came up with a scheme to kill her imprisoned brothers and thus make herself the undisputed heir?

Elizabeth's relationship with Richard certainly gave her the opportunity to arrange the deaths of her brothers. We cannot be certain how far this relationship had progressed. A number of notable historians do suggest that Richard and Elizabeth were sleeping together on a regular basis. I am not saying that this is the case, we cannot be sure. But no-one can know what happens behind closed doors (in my experience the strangest things happen behind closed doors), but ideas could have been whispered into Richard's ear by his niece. Attractive women can and do persuade powerful men to do all kinds of deeds. History also tells us that powerful men are partially prone to the charms of attractive young women. I don't believe that it would have taken much to persuade Richard that the boys were better off dead than alive. Richard would see the obvious advantages. It was clear by this time that Anne Neville was dying, and Richard himself had no heir as their son had died earlier in the year. Upon Anne's death Richard could marry Elizabeth. It would then not matter about the claims of usurpation. If Elizabeth were rightful queen, then Richard would be king by way of being her husband. The two could have plotted these scenarios over a number of months.

It is also possible that Elizabeth managed to persuade Richard to let her visit her brothers in the Tower. If this were the case she could have committed the deed herself and Richard would not have known. However, I confess that this is unlikely unless Elizabeth took help with her at the time.

Anne Neville's death on 16
th
March 1485 effectively brought about an end to the relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York. The people on the streets of London were openly saying that the king had murdered the queen so that he might marry his niece. There is likely to be little truth in these accusations. It was obvious to all at court that Anne Neville had been dying for quite some time. By the end of 1484, it was simply not a matter of if the queen were to die but when. However, Richard's already battered and bruised reputation amongst his subjects could not take a further beating. As such, Richard was forced to put aside Elizabeth, at least for the present. Of course, Richard soon had other matters to occupy him as Henry Tudor's forces prepared their invasion.

This actually presented Elizabeth with another fantastic opportunity to gain a crown. Margaret Beaufort and her mother Elizabeth Woodville had been plotting that Elizabeth should marry Henry Tudor and unite the claims of Lancaster and York. Elizabeth would simply marry whoever emerged victorious and take her crown.

The more I look at this theory the more I like it. As a policeman I have a suspect that has both powerful motivation and the means to make it happen. It addition, her character shows ambition, intelligence and the ability to act without morals. How many teenage girls would sleep with their uncle while their aunt lay dying? Of course, as tantalising and intriguing as this theory is, there is no real evidence to suggest that Elizabeth of York did have a hand in the murder of her brothers. The fact that Henry VII repealed Titulus Regius so quickly after his accession to the throne suggests that he knew the princes were dead. It is possible that Elizabeth of York was the one that told him that this was case. However, this can't be considered to be real evidence against Elizabeth, as it could just as easily have been Margaret Beaufort who told Henry of the deaths of the boys, or that he had arranged the murder himself. And yet even without the evidence I can't get Elizabeth of York out of my mind. She had far too much to gain.

Over the years and particularly in the recent past, Margaret Beaufort has been portrayed by novelists as the ultimate schemer. She is shown as a woman who was obsessed with the Lancastrian cause and who could never quite come to terms with the fact that the House of York was on the throne.

To a degree that portrayal is correct. Certainly she never stopped her own quest to put her son on the throne. Her fourth marriage to Lord Stanley put her directly into the heart of Edward IV's court. She served Elizabeth Woodville, and the queen showed her favour by making her godmother to one of her daughters. At Richard III's coronation she carried the train of Anne Neville, Queen of England. It could easily be seen that Margaret would have embraced Richard's seizing of the throne. In a matter of weeks, three males who would have stood in the way of her son's path to the throne had been swept away.