← HistoryExtra podcast
HistoryExtra podcast
Princes in the Tower: could this new discovery solve the mystery?
00:36:15
Professor Tim Thornton and Tracy Borman discuss a brand new discovery in the longstanding mystery of what happened to the princes in the Tower
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
Tyler
Hi, I'm Tyler, founder of Cozy Earth. When you're thinking about the perfect gift, what better way to show your loved ones that you care than by giving them something that helps them feel better, sleep better, and add superior luxury to their everyday life? If you sleep in our sheets for 100 nights and don't absolutely love your experience, we'll refund your money, no questions asked. This year, give the gift of Cozy Earth. Once they try it, they'll never go back. Use code Spotify@cozy earth.com and save up to 40%. That's cozyearth.com Spotify Meaningless stuff why do we gift so much meaningless stuff? Tired of generic gifts and hollow trends? Shutterfly allows you to create meaningful photo gifts for your family and friends. Whether it's a cozy fleece blanket for grandma, a stunning canvas print for mom, or a mug to make dad smile. Enjoy 40% off with code make40@shutterfly.com and make something meaningful this year. See site for more details.
- [01:04]
Ellie Cawthorn
Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. The disappearance of the Princes in The tower in 1483 is one of British history's most enduring mysteries. But a brand new discovery made by Professor Tim Thornton might now offer some more clues about what happened to the young royals and who was responsible. Tim's discovery is the subject of a new documentary, Princes in the Tower, a Damning Discovery, airing on Channel 5 this evening and available to catch up on My5. Along with the show's presenter, historian Dr. Tracy Borman, Tim joined me to share more details of his discovery and what it may mean for this centuries old cold case.
- [01:58]
Professor Tim Thornton
Tim and Tracy, thank you so much for joining me. Today we're going to be talking about some exciting new discoveries that you've made, Tim, regarding the fate of the Princes in the Tower. I hate to tease listeners, but before we get into what exactly it is that you've discovered, I wonder if we could give people some context and bring anyone who doesn't know about this story up to date. Up until now, what has been known or believed about what happened to the Princes in the Tower? Tracy, I wonder if you might be able to take us through this one.
- [02:28]
Dr. Tracy Borman
Well, the Princes in the Tower is undoubtedly one of the most controversial debated mysteries in British history. And also from my perspective working at the Tower of London, it's certainly the most talked about story. So the Princes were the young sons of King Edward IV who died in April 1483. Now, even though he had two sons and heirs, they were too Young to rule. The elder of them, Edward, was 12. His younger brother Richard was 9. So their uncle, Edward IV's brother, Richard of Gloucester, he was appointed Lord Protector to rule until his elder nephew, Edward, was old enough to take the reins. He placed Edward in the Tower. Now, that always sounds quite ominous, doesn't it? Really put somebody going into the Tower, but actually it was a royal palace and a very secure one, so you can see the rationale. And Edward was then joined later by his younger brother, Richard. And initially they were seen just as guests of the Tower, shooting arrows, no cause for concern. But then gradually, during the summer of 1483, they were seen less and less and they were moved to more protected parts of the Tower, that sort of inner chambers of the Tower to be housed there. And then eventually, by the end of that summer, they were never seen again. Now, it was assumed at the time that they had been quietly murdered on the orders of their uncle Richard, because by then he had had them declared illegitimate and himself made King Richard iii. But the fact is that nobody knew for sure. And so the mystery endured a couple of hundred years later, 1674, this was really the major development in this whole story, when the skeletons of two children were discovered underneath a staircase close to where we know the princes were kept. When they were moved to those inner lodgings in the Tower. Charles II was then on the throne. He had no doubt that they were the bones of the missing princes, and he ordered that they be reburied in Westminster Abbey, and there they remain to this day. They were briefly exhumed in the 1930s for some analysis, which was quite helpful, but. But again, not conclusive. And so the mystery continues to go on, and of course it's vexed scholars, I not overstating it, I think, to say it is the hottest topic, really, in British history.
- [05:13]
Professor Tim Thornton
Absolutely. I mean, everyone loves a murder mystery. And so the question at the heart really of this is, what happened to the princes and did their uncle, Richard iii murder them? And it's something that people get incredibly passionate about. So, Tim, let's get into it. I wonder if we can turn now to your discovery. Where does this story start for you, Tim? When did you start looking into this?
- [05:35]
I've been looking into broadly this topic pretty much all of my career, which I'm terrified to note is now about 30 years. Most attempts to resolve this mystery in the past have been focused on the events, the people, the context. In the period leading up to the crisis that Tracy has just so eloquently explained, they've looked at the chief suspects, they've considered their opportunity to carry out the crime. They've looked at their potential motivation. Obviously, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, has been one of the key figures in that, but there are others. So, for example, the Duke of Buckingham or Lord Stanley, some of the other major political players in 1483 have also been examined in that light. What I started to do five or six years ago was to, I suppose, take a different approach. Most of those historians, for them, the summer of 1483 is when this story ends, and they've really worked back from that point to try and understand who was responsible for the disappearance and probable death of the princes. The approach I've started to take is to recognize that the summer of 1483 is not where the story ends, it's where the story begins. And one of the tasks for a historian is to understand how stories like this take shape, how they develop, and to understand what they mean, both for the events that they describe and also for the context in which they're created. So we have a very detailed account of the fate of the princes, which was written about 30 years after their disappearance. It's the first really detailed account that attributes blame and it identifies how the deed was done. And this account was written by a man called Thomas More, very, very famous figure in the history of the early Tudor period. Somebody who I think will be familiar from various film and TV adaptations, one of the most compelling figures, I think, actually, in all of English history. But I think Thomas More is controversial with many people because of that account that he produced of the death of the princes. He ascribes responsibility very directly to a man called Sir James Tyrrell. And he identifies the two individuals who carried out the murder for Sir James Tyrrell, two individuals called Miles Forrest and John Dighton.
- [08:17]
And the implication here is that James Tyrrell is ultimately acting as an agent of Richard iii.
- [08:23]
Indeed. So when I began this attempt to understand how these stories developed, I was working against a background of very great skepticism about this story. The idea that Thomas More was writing accurate history, I think, had become one that was significantly challenged from a variety of directions. So this account, this critical account of the fate of the princes, was by many people, believed to be a simple exercise in propaganda by Richard's enemies. Because, as Tracy describes, Richard replaced his nephew as king. He didn't survive on the throne for long, because in 1485, he too was overthrown. And he was replaced by a man we know as Henry vii, who obviously had many reasons for wanting to blacken the reputation of the man he'd replaced, his son, Henry viii, king at the time. When Thomas More wrote this account, I think it would be fairly obvious to suggest that there was an opportunity for a propagandistic account to apply. Other people have said that More may not have been writing pure propaganda, but he was more interested in writing great literature. He was more interested in writing political philosophy, basically writing an account of how a country can fall into tyranny very quickly, and that this is really rather abstract and not that accurate historical account that it presents itself as. So the approach that I began to take five or six years ago was to look at that story and to try and understand whether there was anything to suggest that elements within it were credible. A couple of years ago I produced a paper which suggested that far from being imaginary individuals or people who'd been perhaps real, but were drawn into the story willy nilly by Thomas More, in the creation of this supposed propaganda, Miles Forrest and John Dighton were real people. And most compellingly, I established that although Miles Forrest died in 1484 during Richard's reign, he had two sons, one called Edward and the other also called Miles, who not only survived into subsequent decades, but actually prospered. They were prominent servants at Henry VIII's court. And most astonishingly, I think the thing that really made this a compelling story was the fact that I established when Thomas More was almost certainly in the process of writing, preparing three years history of Richard iii, while he was doing that on embassy in the Low Countries at Bruges, the man who was carrying messages between that embassy and the court back in England was none other than Miles Forrest Jr. The son of the man he says killed the princes in the Tower. Now, that is an extraordinary connection. There is this wonderful letter from 1515, which has Thomas More's signature at the foot and it has Miles Forest's name at the head. That story, which I think for many people had become pretty much irrelevant to understanding what really happened to the princes. That story, which might have simply become a piece of aggressive propaganda or purely abstract literature, suddenly started to connect very directly to the people that Maw knew, people who'd been around at the time of the disappearance of the princes. One of the things, and I think Tracy explained it beautifully earlier, one of the things that makes this story so compelling is that the boys, the princes, disappear without a trace. She mentioned the discovery of the bodies in 1674, but actually that is a couple of hundred years after the events we're describing. Until that point, there are. There are no real meaningful traces of the bodies of the boys who've disappeared. Nor are there any traces of any physical survivals of the princes, which again is an extraordinary thing. No clothing is reputed to survive from them. No items of personal possessions, weapons, jewelry, similar.
- [12:32]
Well, on that point, Tracy, obviously you work for historic royal palaces. You guys have got loads of stuff in your collections. How unusual is it that we just don't have anything for a royal figure?
- [12:44]
Dr. Tracy Borman
It is pretty unusual. I mean, obviously royal figures from many centuries ago, not a great deal survives. But for example, at Hampton Court we have what's known as the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection, which contains items of royal dress all the way back to the 1500s and for pretty much every monarch. So whether it's clothing or jewelry or some kind of personal possessions, there's usually something. So as Tim said, the prince has disappeared without a trace. That is highly unusual and it just makes Tim's discovery all the more exciting.
- [13:24]
Professor Tim Thornton
Yes. So let's stop teasing listeners and actually tell them about your discovery. Tim, take us through it.
- [13:31]
So I've discovered a record of the survival of something very personal and highly valued that belonged to King Edward V, the elder of the two princes, his chain. It's likely that this was a very precious, specific possession of his men at this period. Powerful men at this period. They will wear chains or collars, obviously made of precious metal and jewels, obviously partly to display their wealth, but also they usually incorporate badges, symbols. So these chains and collars, these are, these are very important ways of expressing who they are, their identity, their loyalties, their association. The thing that makes this really exciting though, is that the discovery shows whose hands that chain was in at the time Thomas More was writing his account of the, of the disappearance and death of the princes. The chain is described in a will. The will in question is that of Margaret Lady Capel, a very important wealthy London widow. And she is, and this is the real significance of the discover. She is the sister in law of Sir James Tyrrell, the man who's identified by Thomas More as the orchestrator of the murder of the princes.
- [14:57]
So can you give us a bit more context on this will? When was it from? How did you find it?
- [15:03]
So the will in question, the section in which the chain is mentioned, was written in 1516. So just to remind listeners, this is the period when we understand Thomas More to have been writing his history. Margaret Capel, a very wealthy woman. Her husband was Sir William Capel, he was Lord Mayor of London twice over 1503-4, and in 1510 he has, you know, many connections to the wider social elite. And he's prominent and wealthy enough to have married a wealthy heiress. And that is Margaret, it's her sister, who was the wife of Sir James Tyrrell.
- [15:48]
I wonder if we could talk a little bit more about the character at the heart of all this, Sir James Tyrrell. Tracy, I wonder if you could illuminate us a bit further about why he's so important and what we know about him.
- [16:00]
Dr. Tracy Borman
So James Tyrrell first and foremost is seen as a bit of a henchman, really. He is Richard III's right hand man, a kind of enforcer, if you like. Now, he has a military background. He's clearly a man of some standing at the court, so he has influence. And what also comes across very clearly from the records is he is a man of ambition, but of intense loyalty. And that loyalty, of course, will be crucial in this because he serves Richard. Regardless of what commands he might be given. Tyrrell will stand by his man. And so he is a crucial figure in this whole story. Of course, he's the one who later will be depicted as the sort of arch villain by Shakespeare in his play Richard iii. And for many years Tyrrell has been seen almost as this kind of pantomime villain and that there isn't perhaps a lot of truth behind this depiction. But what Tim's done so brilliantly and what completely turned this whole story on its head for me is as he said earlier, to not look at the events leading up to, but looking at the events that followed the disappearance of the princes, to really interrogate the figures involved Tyrrell, but also, you know, Miles Forrest and his sons, what came after has actually ended up providing the clue to what went before. The other notable thing about Tyrrell is that actually, although he was in France at the time that the Tudors came to the throne, he did return and he was later implicated in a treasonous plot against Henry Tudor, Henry vii and he was placed in the Tower. Now, according to more, Tyrrell actually confessed to the murders of the princes during his imprisonment.
- [18:07]
Professor Tim Thornton
So in this new discovery we have a chain that once belonged to one of the princes of the Tower is now in the hands of the sister in law of their supposed or suspected killer. But we have to ask, is there any other way that a chain like this would have ended up in her hands? Or what's the story that you would build around this, essentially?
- [18:29]
So absolutely, I acknowledge that there are other ways that this chain might have reached Sir William and Margaret Capel. It might have been that in the aftermath of the deposition of Edward V, not making any assumptions about their fate, but in the aftermath of his deposition, that his most valuable possessions might have been dispersed and sold off. And as a wealthy Londoner, Sir William Capel might have been in a position to buy them. They might have simply been discarded. I think that's very unlikely. But they might have simply been discarded and somehow found their way into the hands of Londoners and been transmitted to the Caples. This is a very symbolic object, though it really does speak to its connection to Edward V. I think the chance of it simply being abandoned somewhere and then picked up is very small. The chances that the Prince's possessions were dispersed in a more neutral way, that's entirely credible. But it's the possession by a connection of James Tyrrell which to me adds to the suspicions around what had happened to the boys before the chain changed hands.
- [19:47]
This will is really interesting because people have spent years poring over every single detail of this case. Why do you think that nobody's come across this before?
- [19:56]
My suspicion is that once the level of skepticism and criticism grew around the credibility of Moore's account, the incentives to explore the credibility of his story, they've diminished. I mean, the truth is, what we've done is not particularly revolutionary. All we've done is to say, we have a suspect here, somebody that's identified by the first detailed account of the murders. Let's look at that suspect and let's try to understand a little bit more about their connections. So exploring members of Tyrrell's family seemed like a straightforward thing to do in understanding the context in which this story was written down in the 1510s and later.
- [20:38]
So there are many people who believe that Richard III was not responsible for this murder. They don't think it was in keeping with his character. They think somebody else might have been to blame. Tracy, I wonder if you could speak a little bit to how you think this discovery might be received by that contingent of the historical debate.
- [20:57]
Dr. Tracy Borman
I have followed the story of the Princes in the Tower so closely throughout my career as a historian. In fact, it's why I became a historian. I remember studying this at my GCSEs, and I just thought, what an intriguing mystery. And I have researched it in my capacity as chief curator at historic royal palaces, because, of course, it's a pivotal story in the history of the Tower and there's so little to go on. And so we've had to go on the shreds of evidence that do exist, and therefore, for this incredibly significant new piece of evidence to come to light. It's the most exciting, I think, the most important discovery in this whole controversy to be made. Certainly in my living memory, I haven't heard anything more compelling than Tim's latest discovery, which, of course builds on his earlier discovery about the sons of Miles Forest being such prominent figures and so closely connected to more. And so this is the next chapter and it's a hugely significant one. That said, of course, I know how emotive this subject is, that of Richard III and the Princes. Richard himself has an army of supporters, loyal supporters today, who I think almost, whatever was discovered, they might question it, they might stick with their original beliefs. So for me, as a historian, this has really changed my perception, but I'm not sure if it will do so universally amongst the supporters of Richard iii.
- [22:39]
Professor Tim Thornton
Yeah, that question you pointed to earlier about the lack of evidence we have for this case, I guess this is one of the reasons why it's become so compelling to people. Why do you think that that is? Why do you think there is so little to draw on in this case, Tim?
- [22:55]
This is, I think, a very good test case for the way that historians work. I mean, I absolutely respect the views of those who passionately defend Richard. I understand why they do it. One of the things that they often say to me and to others is that we've not proven this case beyond reasonable doubt. They apply the same criminal level of proof that you would expect in a court of law today. I think we have to try and explain as historians, is that when you're working on a topic like this, it's almost impossible to achieve levels of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As historians, we can't interview suspects, we can't visit the scene of the crime and undertake forensic investigations. We have to work with the limited body of evidence that remains, and we have to do so in the context of often ferociously contested arguments. So what historians have to do is to work on a balance of probabilities. I think that's entirely reasonable. It recognizes that on, not just on topics like this, we almost inevitably have imperfect evidence. I guess more specifically, there were quite a lot of people at the time and immediately afterwards who didn't want there to be evidence of the events in question. One of the things I've tried to say about what we call tudor England, so 16th century England, is that it's full of people who are deeply compromised by their involvements over the previous decades. You've got to remember, as Tracy explained, this is a period of, say, aftermath of civil conflict. This is a world in which people have fought bitterly over the English throne. They've been responsible for what I think we would see as being pretty horrific crimes. And in situations like this, early 16th century in England, I draw parallels with Europe after 1945. There isn't always an incentive for people to pick over the past in huge detail.
- [25:01]
And if anybody is listening and they want to learn more about any of the alternate theories about what happened to the princess in the Tower, they can, of course, turn to history Extra, where there's loads more material that we don't have time to, you know, get into today. But I wonder, Tim and Tracy, if I could just draw you out a little bit more on where you think this leaves us in the balance of probabilities. Does it change our perspective on the story?
- [25:25]
The balance of probabilities is shifting quite significantly, I think, as a result of the work I've done to suggest that Richard was responsible and that we have likely murderers in the Tyrrell Forest and Dighton.
- [25:39]
Dr. Tracy Borman
I would agree. And I think this brings us quite significantly closer to what actually happened to the princes in the Tower. Now, I would absolutely stress that throughout my career as a historian, I have kept very much an open mind on this. It's a deeply divisive issue and it's a shame that it has to be so that there are these two camps and you can't just be somewhere in the middle and be objective, which is what I've tried to be. But I'm fascinated by Tim's research and in particular this latest discovery, because when added up with the other elements of this case, if we call it that, I think it does actually take us quite significantly further. And it also adds credibility to an account that for 500 years has been dismissed as Tudor propaganda. We need to take Thomas More's account of the princes in the Tower very seriously, and not just for the reasons that Tim has so clearly outlined, but also, Thomas More was known to be a man of principle. He died for his principles. He's not just a mouthpiece for the Tudor regiment. So I think what Tim has done brilliantly is shine a light on his account. And then, of course, with this discovery of Edward V's gold chain, that just adds more credibility to that account. So I'm hugely excited by it. I know that this is ongoing research for Tim and I can't wait to find out more discoveries from him.
- [27:23]
Professor Tim Thornton
As you say, this is ongoing research. It's a live story, so we'd love to hear from listeners about what they think happened because there'll be lots of people with lots of opinions on this, I'm sure. But in this live story, is there anything, Tim, that you would want to leave listeners with or that you think you'd really like to mention? As a final point, the Caples, Margaret.
- [27:43]
And William, who are in possession of this chain, Edward V's chain, they're very wealthy people. Wealthy people need good lawyers to look after their property and their wealth. In the 1510s, the lawyer that they rely on probably more than anyone else is a man called John Moore. He's a very successful lawyer. He becomes a judge not long afterwards. I guess you probably can see where this is going. John Moore is the father of Thomas More. So not only have we identified for the first time a physical survival from the princes, not only have we identified it in the hands of the sister in law of the man that More says organized the murders, but we can also connect very directly that Capel family, the people who own the chain, with Moore himself.
- [28:40]
Dr. Tracy Borman
What I would like to say from this as well as just the importance of Tim's discovery is that it's so often as a historian, it's when you go off at a tangent that you discover the most important things. And when you look at a story in the round, when you don't just go over the known documents, the known sources and actually I hate the phrase think outside the box, but I find myself using it now to look at it from a different perspective. And that's exactly what's happened here. Who knew that a seemingly unconnected will in the National Archives would provide such a vital clue to this centuries old mystery? And also as a historian, and I know Tim fully embraces this, you have to go back to the original sources. That's where the gold nuggets can be found. And literally in this case with the gold chain of Edward V. And so it's absolutely thrilling in the making of this new series about the Tower of London to have gone to the National Archives with Tim and actually seen this document. It's something that I will never forget. It was a true shivers down the spine moment for me as a historian and it's been 40 years for me before something like this has come to light. So yeah, I'm always going to remember this.
- [30:03]
Professor Tim Thornton
One of the nice things about this discovery is that it's only just been made. Viewers on the Channel 5 program inside the Tower of London are seeing this pretty much ahead of anybody else. It is being published in an academic journal, the Historical Association's journal, History, that is accessible to anybody who wants to read further into the detail. But there's something really quite exciting about how this discovery is almost being made live.
- [30:29]
Dr. Tracy Borman
As a historian, I find Tim's discovery hugely exc and very, very significant and at historic royal palaces I'm chief curator there. We have always remained neutral in this story and of course it's a very interesting discovery for us. But we will continue to let visitors to the Tower make up their own minds about what happened.
- [30:55]
Ellie Cawthorn
That was Professor Tim Thornton and Dr. Tracy Borman speaking to me. Ellie Cawthorn. You can watch the documentary that reveals more on the findings, Princes in the A Damning discovery on Channel 5 tonight or you can catch up on it on My5. And if you want to read the full academic overview of Tim's research and discovery, you can find a link to his article in the description of this episode. Thanks for listening. This this podcast was produced by Jack Bateman.