Shakespeare: The Murder of the Princes: Is Richard to Blame?

Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III in his play, The Tragedy of Richard the Third, and that of Thomas More, writing as a "Tudor historian,"have given most people the impression that King Richard III was an evil, hunchbacked villain who murdered the two princes and attempted to cover up their disappearance. Of course, the rumor that Richard "came into the world very ugly in the face and distorted in form, and that his hair and teeth were already grown...is very doubtful". Consequently, if his physical appearance had been misinterpreted, it is also evident that his charges of evil and murder must also be scrutinized.

The object of the Tudor historians, in commencing their grotesque caricature of an imaginary monster with these stories of his personal deformity, is apparent. They intended to make him [Richard] detestable from the outset. They calculated that improbable crimes would be more readily believed, if the alleged perpetrator was a deformed hunchback born with teeth.

Most all investigations into King Richard III and his role in the murder of the princes have come up inconclusive, with theories and interpretations becoming the only explanations.

The controversy over the "usurpation" of the throne by King Richard III and the alleged securing of his position by eradicating the only two people who could subsequently threaten his position was best propagated by Thomas More. Yet, no one has ever proved that Richard III murdered the two heirs to the throne, Prince Richard and King Edward. Allegations are based on the idea that Richard had the most to gain by murdering the princes. This biased idea, although not improbable, remains questionable in part because Richard was not the only person to have a motive to kill the princes, if they were murdered at all. Besides Richard, there are others who could have benefited from the death or disappearance of the princes. Henry Tudor and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, both have been proven to have had just as much, if not more, to gain from the disappearance of the princes than Richard.

In order to delve into this mystery, a small string of events need to be clear in order to develop a strong verdict. To begin, it must first be recognized that all participants within this investigation are descendants of King Edward III. Among these descendants, there has been strife concerning inheritance rights, especially that of the throne and kingdom.

King Edward IV, great-grandson of Edward III, died of an illness during his reign as king in 1483. His two sons were heirs to the throne until it was brought to the attention of the royal council that Edward IV's sons might be illegitimate. With this in mind, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester and uncle to the two princes, formally contested the princes' legitimacy. Furthermore, he contested the legitimacy of Edward IV's marriage because of an alleged contract of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. If these allegations proved to be true, then the princes would not be eligible to obtain the throne since they had not been legitimized during Edward's lifetime and Richard Plantagenet would be the next rightful heir.

It declared that, inasmuch as it was clearly established that King Edward the Fourth was already the husband of "Dame Alionora Boteler," [Eleanor Butler] by a previous marriage, at the time of his pretended marriage with Elizabeth Woodville, and that consequently his children by Elizabeth Woodville, not being born in lawful wedlock, could have no rights of inheritance whatever from their father, and especially could by no means derive from him any title to the crown; and inasmuch as the children of Clarence had been cut off from the succession by the bill of attainder which had been passed against their father; and inasmuch as Richard came next in order to these in line of succession, therefore he was now the true and rightful heir.

It would be hard to disprove the illegitimacy of Edward IV's children, mainly because of Edward's extensive track record. Bertram Fields gives this point more clout by saying, "Edward IV certainly engaged in numerous affairs before (and after) his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and he seems to have been the kind of man who would be ready to promise marriage (or anything else) in order to bed an attractive woman." Unbeknownst to Edward IV at the time, the alleged contract of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler and the fact that Edward IV had a history of promiscuity, would eventually lead his two successors to an imminent demise.

The legitimacy debate eventually led the princes to be locked in the Tower of London until the controversy was straightened out, during which time, Richard Plantagenet was crowned King Richard III. Richard was considered to be the heir by two different qualifications, "the right of birth and the election of the three estates of the realm". During Richard's reign, the princes disappeared never to be found, and Richard was left to take the blame that was predominantly based on the motive of securing his throne. Contrarily, there are others whose rights to the throne were increased with the disappearance of the princes.

It is apparent that every scholar who has approached this topic has had his or her own suspects. This list seems to differ from scholar to scholar, for example, some include Henry Tudor's mother, while others include the Duke of Norfolk. There are two suspects, besides Richard, that seem to top all of the lists: Henry VII (Henry Tudor), and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. It seems that both of these suspects deserve scrutiny.

Henry Tudor, who later becomes Henry VII, qualifies as a suspect with motives that predate the two nephews. After the death of Edward IV, Tudor was denied the throne under accusations that his blood was not pure. This was based on an assumption that he was illegitimate. With this authoritatively defined defeat, Henry Tudor portrayed enough evidence to support the theory of a motive. Through sheer retaliation against Richard, Tudor could have been the one who sealed the fate of the princes. Clements Markham furthers this point by saying

Henry VII had no valid title to the throne. It was not only the new king's interest, but a necessity of his position, that he should cause grave charges to be brought against his predecessor, and that they should be accepted as true. Henry VII had the power and the will to silence all comment. We know that he destroyed evidence in favour of his predecessor. Authors employed by him, and others who were anxious to please him and his successors, were alone permitted to write histories.

Further, the motive for Henry Tudor might come from his potential realization that after the removal of the princes, only one person was left between he and the throne: Richard III. During Henry's proclamation to his army, the night before the battle at Bosworth Field, he stated "For he that calleth himself king [Richard III], keepeth from me the crown and regiment of this noble realm and country, contrary to all justice and equity". Also, if could be conceived that the eradication of the princes was step one of a two-step plan to gain control of the crown, Henry Tudor killed Richard III during the battle of Bosworth, after the disappearance of the princes. Which in turn, returned Henry as heir to the throne.

Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, could also be considered another prime suspect. Stafford actually helped Richard III to gain his throne, only to subsequently betray Richard by becoming "one of the principal leaders of the conspiracy [to dethrone Richard]". Although it is not known why Henry Stafford turned on Richard, Jacob Abbott states that Stafford was probably "dissatisfied with the rewards which Richard bestowed upon him". Abbott also continues the accusations that Richard III had the princes eradicated during "his royal progress to the north, while the minds of the people of England were engrossed with the splendor of pageantry with which his progress was accompanied". Unfortunately for Abbott, this does not put the burden of proof on Richard because during Richard's royal progress, Stafford's access to the kingdom had no limitations.

He had access to the entire kingdom including the London Tower in which the princes were being held. When referring to Henry Stafford, Paul Murray Kendall wrote that, "As a Constable of England, [Henry Stafford, the Duke of] Buckingham would find no doors shut to him. He had means of access to the [London] Tower and to the Princes." What is more, Stafford has also been seen as merely an accomplice to murder. On the one hand, some arguments like that of Clements Markham, see both Stafford and Richard working together for a common goal. While on the other hand, scholars such as Kendall see it more plausible that Stafford worked with Henry Tudor to exterminate the princes. Also, there is the possibility that Stafford worked on his own. Bertram Fields describes Henry Stafford as having "a claim to the throne himself, albeit inferior to that of Richard and the two princes. As we have seen, the duke was descended from Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest surviving son of Edward III."

With all of the speculation of murder and misconduct, the idea that the princes were not murdered at all, still could be a possibility. With the consideration of a jaw bone disease, from which young Prince Edward might have suffered, the possibility remains that at least one of the princes could have died in the tower of "melancholia and ill-health." Remember, the princes were never definitively found, and for that reason, there is no concrete evidence to support an exact time of the princes' demise; regardless, there are theories as to where the princes' remains are located.

Many years after the abduction of the princes, in 1674, two sets of bones were found, buried in a large trunk, and smoothed over with concrete underneath a flight of stairs, within the London Tower. This discovery of physical evidence of children's bodies found in the tower, possibly belonging to the princes, only helped to fuel the old allegations against Richard III. The bones of the two young people were examined but neither the sex nor the identities of the bones were proven. The bones were again examined in 1933 with again no clear evidence being discovered as to the identity of the bones; and since then, no one has been able to exhume the human remains. These remains, though believed to be those of the two princes, have provided no clear evidence of identity. Also, since the bones have no distinct age, even if they were the bones of the princes, this does not prove that Richard was behind the murders. It is possible that the princes were murdered subsequent to Richard's demise at Bosworth. There are also numerous possibilities as to the identity of the bones considering that there were many people, over hundreds of years, which met their demise in the Tower of London.

Modern day investigations into this case can be situated within many factions of study. From rogue scholars, to college preparatory and law students to amateur historians, literary scholars and professors, the controversy of the missing princes continues to be poignantly studied. With current advances in science and technology, a new investigation could be opened to bring more light on the subject with regard to the bones that were extracted out of the tower, but this request has not been granted since the mid-1930s. Therefore, the only tools in which the mystery can be unraveled are through the use of scholarly interpretation of records and precise detective work. Modern technology can test for specific DNA, and other modern methods of detective work could prove useful, but, until the royal family permits a new investigation, there will not be further evidence extracted from the remains of the princes. Fortunately, the lack of sufficient testing on the remains found in the Tower has not held back the tide of further research.

One creative investigation into the allegations against Richard took place at the Indiana State University School of Law in 1996. A mock trial was conducted and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William Rehnquist, presided over this court battle. After the lawyers for the prosecution and defense had rested, Rehnquist found for the defendant, King Richard III, on the grounds that most of the evidence provided was circumstantial. Also, it was proven that there were others who would have also had enough motive to, if not physically perform the act, order someone else to get rid of the princes. Keep in mind, law is considered to be a battle of words and there must be enough evidence in order to convict. Therefore, a court verdict within the United States, would not definitively conclude whether the parties are guilty or innocent. The verdict has to be based beyond the shadow of a doubt. Nevertheless, it does show that the evidence does not consistently point the finger at Richard.

Richard the Third reigned as king only three years. During those three years one of the most intriguing and controversial crimes within the history of European royalty happened. The reign of Richard the Third was not only a change of royal blood that possessed the throne, but also, it was a time where Edward IV's bloodline was cut short with the disappearance of Richard's nephews, Prince Richard and King Edward, the previous heirs to the throne. Granted, Richard sustained the power of the throne as a result of the disappearance of the princes, but it seems Richard was not the only one with assets to gain as a result of their abduction. It seems ludicrous to suggest that Richard was the only one with anything to reap from the death of the princes, especially when Henry Tudor and Henry Stafford could both be considered suspects. It could also be possible that there was no murder, that natural causes could have taken the life of, at least one of the princes, while the other lived in exile, somewhere beyond the reach of the crown. Bibliography

Abbott, Jacob. History of King Richard the Third of England. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1899.

Dockray, Keith. Richard III: A Reader in History. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publications Limited, 1998.

Goldsmid, Edmund. Editor. A Collection of Historical Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns. Edinburg, Privately Printed, 1886.

Fields, Bertram. Royal blood : Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes. New York, N.Y. : Harper Collins, 1998.

Gairdner, James. "Did Henry VII Murder the Princes?". The English Historical Review. Volume 6 Number 23 (July, 1891) : 444-464.

Hicks, Michael. Richard III: The Man Behind The Myth. London: Collins and Brown, 1991.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard III; The Great Debate. London, Folio Society, 1965.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York : Anchor Books, 1965.

Kleyn, D.M. Richard of England. Oxford: The Kensal Press, 1990.

Lamb, V. B. The Betrayal of Richard III. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publications Limited, 1959.

Levine, Mortimer. "Richard III--Usurper or Lawful King?". Speculum Volume 34 Number 3. (July, 1959) : 391-401.

Mancini, Dominic. The Usurpation of Richard III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.

Markham, Clements R. "Richard III: A Doubtful Verdict Reviewed". The English Historical Review, Volume 6, Number 22 (April, 1891) : 250-283.

Payling, S.J. "Murder, Motive and Punishment in Fifteenth-Century England: Two Gentry Case-Studies". The English Historical Review, Volume 113,

Richard the Third Society, American Branch. "Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Finds King Richard III 'Not Guilty' of the Murder of the Princes in the Tower." Available from http://www.r3.org/trial/. Internet; accessed October 15, 2005.

Weir, Alison. The Princes in the Tower. New York : Ballantine, 1994.

Levine, Mortimer. "Richard III--Usurper or Lawful King?". Speculum Volume 34, Number 3. (July, 1959) : 400.

Abbott, Jacob. History of King Richard the Third of England. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1899, 58.

Markham, Clements R. "Richard III: A Doubtful Verdict Reviewed". The English Historical Review, Volume 6, Number 22 (April, 1891) : ,256

Mancini, Dominic. The Usurpation of Richard III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936, passim.

Levine, 391.

Abbott, 270-271.

Fields, Bertram. Royal blood : Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes. New York, N.Y. : Harper Collins, 1998, 109.

Abbott, 271.

Dockray, Keith. Richard III: A Reader in History. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publications Limited, 1998, passim.

Markham, 250.

Goldsmid, Edmund. Editor. A Collection of Historical Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns. Edinburg, Privately Printed, 1886, 6-7.

Abbott, 305.

Abbott, 305.

Abbott, 295.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York : Anchor Books, 1965, 460.

Markham, 266-272.

Kendall, Richard the Third, 461.

Fields, 293.

Kendall, Richard the Third, 441.

Kendall, Richard the Third, 454.

Richard the Third Society, American Branch. "Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Finds King Richard III 'Not Guilty' of the Murder of the Princes in the Tower." Available from http://www.r3.org/trial/. Internet; accessed October 15, 2005.