The Mystery of The Princes in The Tower:
A Causal Argument
In every mystery and/or conspiracy that involves murder and or disappearances, there is always at least two things: motives, and suspects. In this case specifically, there is a cause for Richard III (our prime suspect in both theories) to have had the princes killed, yet looking at this through a different lens, there are also many causal relationships that would support the claim that Richard III allowed the princes to live. It is important to acknowledge the fact that there are causal arguments on both opposing sides of this mystery. For example on the theory that the princes were murdered, there is faith placed in the claim that because Richard III had his sights set on the throne, he murdered his nephews in cold blood. The throne and the power that comes with it would act as a motive for murder in this case. However, on the theory that the princes were spared, there is faith placed in the claim that because the princes were Richard III’s nephews, he did not have them killed. Human decency and not desiring to kill members of his family would act as Richard’s motive to spare the princes. The difference between the two is, there is exiguous evidence of the prince’s deaths, and evidence that is linked to the princes does not have a solid foundation to stand on. Most importantly, the refusal of the crown to further investigate what could have happened to these two young princes provides uncertainty that Richard ordered their deaths.
Firstly, let’s again acknowledge the fact that the two princes are Richard III’s nephews, His brother King Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville children. This fact in itself would cause anyone to believe that the probability of Richard ordering the murder of these two innocent children is particularly unlikely. As I’ve said previously the cause for this would be ordinary human decency. Although it is true that Richard was not supportive of his brother’s (King Edward IV) choice of wife, the princes were still his family. The prince’s mother, Elizabeth Woodville, was a widow and a mother already before she had even married King Edward IV. During the time this was almost an unacceptable choice of suitor for the king. However, the two married anyway and had many children including the princes in the tower. Although Richard seemed stagnant on this issue while his brother Edward IV was still alive, upon his death the question of the legitimacy of their marriage created a window of opportunity for Richard to seize power. Since Elizabeth Woodville had these underlying factors against her legitimacy as queen, upon his brother Edward IV’s death and along with the presumable public favor, this in turn would make it unchallenging for Richard to simply declare the princes as bastards and exile them. And what threat would two bastard boys pose to Richard III that would be salient enough to have them killed?
Being that Richard did in fact declare the princes illegitimate on the grounds that King Edward IV was already betrothed to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married the prince’s mother, there would be no cause to have them killed. If they were illegitimate in his eyes, and also parliament under Richard’s influence as well, what threat would two illegitimate children with disgraced claims to the throne pose to him? The fact is that they wouldn’t. Because of both the prince’s young age and their mother, the dowager queen’s unpopularity at court, Richard had the most leverage in this situation to be able to easily lay claim to the throne without murdering his nephews. His brother Edward’s unfavorable marriage perhaps provided him with the most motive to dismiss the boys without bloodshed.
Many scholars could argue the fact that based on the accounts of Sir Thomas More on Richard III, and even Shakespeare’s dramatization of the reign of Richard III, that Richard would have a cause to in fact murder the princes. This is because Richard is portrayed as power hungry and cruel in these works. However, as I mentioned in my defining argument, it is extensively speculated that these accounts are Tudor propaganda to smear Richard’s character which would benefit the Tudor king these works were written under. Another primary account by Italian Chronicler Dominic Mancini states that the princes were “Withdrawn to the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows until at length they ceased to appear altogether. Already there is a suspicion that they have been done away with.” According to the Historic Royal Palaces, Mancini was a minor diplomat in Edward IV’s court between the years of 1482 and 1483. With his role being a diplomat, he recorded what he saw and heard at the royal court. Refuting the foreign diplomat’s claims, things simply heard at court would almost always include foul rumors and gossip. This would cause his records, like those of More and Shakespeare, unable to be proven accurate.
It is recorded that after the disappearance of the princes, also Richard III’s peak of power, Dowager Queen Elizabeth Woodville (the prince’s mother) came back to court and seemed to have mended relations with King Richard III. Since this had all happened after the princes disappeared, if Richard did have them killed, this would cause it to be extremely unlikely that their mother would travel back to court and face the man who ordered the deaths of her beloved sons. We have to think about Elizabeth’s motive in this situation as well. Is it possible that she returned to court and mended relations in the public eye to quell any rebellions on behalf of her late husband Edward IV and their sons only if Richard had promised to spare her sons? This very well may be. Elizabeth’s seemingly painless return to the English court is another unequivocally pivotal argument supporting the claim that the prince’s lives were spared.
Another cause and effect relationship in this case is the discovery of two children’s skeletal remains in the Tower of London. This discovery, that would make the remains seemingly belong to the two princes, caused many to believe that this was finally the missing piece in this greatly debated mystery. However, with the almost immediate internment of the bones, and the re-examination of them in the 1930’s, evidence was provided that could disprove these bones belonging to Prince Edward V and his younger brother Richard. This would cause a spike in the belief that the boys were allowed to live. This archaeological variance has caused an even more in depth debate on what happened to them. One point in particular is that the older set of remains (presumed to belong to Prince Edward V) had a disease that affected the jaw and facial features as well, leaving them deformed. This disease of course would be present in appearance while the prince was alive. The young prince’s doctor had no record of him having any disease that would cause his face to be deformed. We know this is not the case because of records of the elder prince’s appearance, and as I mentioned previously, his physician’s records of his health and wellbeing. This lack of archaeological evidence to defend the claim that the princes were murdered in the tower, causes the claim that they were spared, to be strengthened.
Looking at the lines of succession for the English throne, the end results almost always stem from cause and effect relationships within the families that have reigned over the years. In this case, they can be as simple as the death of Edward IV caused Richard to come to London and claim the throne. They can also be as complex as Edward IV marrying Elizabeth Woodville (a widow), caused their son’s claim to the throne to be easily challenged, which in turn caused the princes to be imprisoned, which caused the rise of Richard III, which then caused the War of the Roses, and so on and so forth. A domino effect, some may say. One small difference in events could change the entire outcome. In defense to my claim that the princes were allowed to live, the examples of causal relationships I have thus provided are conspicuous.
References
Shakespeare, W. (1593). Richard III: Entire play. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardiii/full.html
Leslau, J. (1988, December). The princes in the Tower | Moreana. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/more.1988.25.2-3.7
More, T. (n.d.). The history of king richard the third – thomas more studies. https://thomasmorestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Richard_III_English_glossed.pdf
The Princes in the Tower. Historic Royal Palaces. (n.d.). https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/the-princes-in-the-tower/#gs.00nsg9
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
Your introduction has the flavor of a Rebuttal argument, HDT, which is understandable but not ideal. You could set up your causal essay as a simple comparison between two theories and save your deep critique of the “wrong” one for a different 1000 words.
I say this with the understanding that the DEF/CAUSE/REBUT division is arbitrary and that overlap is inevitable, nothing to be concerned about. Keep the division in mind and respect it if you can.
Your Introduction could sound more purely causal but still promote one version:
In every mystery of murder or disappearance we look for motives to explain the consequences. In The Case of the Two Princes in the Tower, even the consequences are unknown. If the princes were murdered, we can speculate about the motives that might have caused their deaths. If they were spared but exiled, we’ll need a different set of motives to rationally explain why they were allowed to live. Richard III is our prime suspect for both, but there is scant evidence of their death, and the evidence that has been found is lacking, while the coverup, and the reluctance to investigate by those with a motive to perpetuate the murder theory creates further doubt that they were killed.
Yeah?
Your second paragraph makes a lot of Causal claims in an order that creates uncertainty in your reader.
Firstly, let’s acknowledge the fact that the two princes are Richard III’s nephews. This fact in itself would cause anyone to believe that the probability of Richard ordering the murder of these two innocent children is particularly unlikely.
—Not immediately obvious to this reader, unless you mean that ordinary human decency would prevent anyone from murdering members of their own family. You shouldn’t be coy about that claim or leave it for another 100 words to pass before naming it.
Although it is true that Richard was not supportive of his brother’s (King Edward IV) choice of wife, the princes were still his family.
—The causal connection between dissatisfaction with a choice of spouse and the willingness to kill one’s nephews is even harder to accept, if that’s what you’re suggesting.
The prince’s mother, Elizabeth Woodville, was a widow and a mother already before she had even married King Edward IV. During the time this was almost an unacceptable choice of suitor for the king.
—That establishes the consequence of social and perhaps universal disapproval of Woodville as queen, not particularly Richard’s.
However, the two married anyway and went on to have Prince Edward V and his younger brother Richard along with many other children.
—I think we all follow how their marriage might result in children.
Since Elizabeth Woodville had these underlying factors against her legitimacy as queen, this in turn would make it unchallenging for Richard to simply declare the princes as bastards after his brother, King Edward IV, died.
—We thought you were laying a case for murder, but here you appear to back way off from that. So . . . perhaps a change of focus and sequence?
I promise I’ll do this only for one paragraph and let you play with the others if the model makes sense to you.
It’s not easy, I know, to share the background as needed while drawing causal conclusions. Check the rest of your work to see if it needs the same sort of attention. You might need to have another reader unfamiliar with the Two Princes analyze your sequencing. Helpful?
Provisionally graded. Revisions always encouraged (required for two of your three short arguments) and Regrading is always possible. Make all revisions to this post (not your Causal Draft), put it back into Feedback Please, and leave a Reply to request additional feedback or a Regrade following substantial improvements.
I like your Causal Chain.
Regraded.