The Mystery of the Princes in the Tower
According to Shakespeare’s play Richard III, King Richard ordered the slaying of the princes in the tower because they had a true claim to the throne he had usurped. Now, given lack of evidence to this claim there has been many speculations as to what happened to the princes in the tower. Although this is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in history, not many people are too familiar with this case. The English monarchy has always been at odds in terms of the succession of the English throne. In this case, we are traveling back to the reign of Edward IV. Edward IV belonged to the house of York, and with his wife Elizabeth Woodville, he had two sons, Edward V, and Richard of Shrewsbury. These two boys would go on to be known as the princes who were imprisoned in the tower of London.
After the death of Edward IV, his brother Richard (who will later be known as King Richard III) descended into London and usurped the throne, which rightfully belonged to King Edward IV’s eldest son Edward V. After this, King Edward’s two young sons were locked up in the tower of London, never to be seen again. This is where the web of the mystery starts to weave itself because in reality, the princes only had two options for their fate: exile or death. Many people seem to believe that Richard had them murdered to strengthen his claim to the throne, whereas others believe that he stripped them of all titles, spared their lives in secrecy, and allowed them to live out their days in exile under aliases.
Both murder and exile are possible, and of course able to be argued for or against, but the most sensible aspect to look at this from is, which theory is more plausible. Looking at this case from the perspective of presuming the princes were murdered, the only really solid motive for this is that it rids Richard of the true heirs to the crown, strengthening his claim to usurp his nephew’s rightful throne. This also eliminates any possibility of those boys producing heirs that could threaten the succession even to this day. Looking at this from the perspective that he allowed the boys to live, the case you can make for this is that it allows Richard to avoid murdering his nephews, and it would also snuff out any wave of rebellion against Richard from those who loved Edward IV and his sons.
When defining my thesis that the princes were not murdered, the simplest explanation is that this theory challenges evidence on the contrasting side that they were murdered. It also gives those who are deeply and intuitively invested in that theory reason to doubt any support to that claim as well. The most enthralling thing that comes to mind is the fact that members of the royal family, both alive and recently deceased, have a deeper insight than most historians and academics as to what happened to Edward V and his little brother Richard. King Charles has been quoted to be supportive of further exploration into this mystery whereas his mother Queen Elizabeth II, contrasted this entirely. My question is, why? If the princes were in fact murdered hundreds of years ago, what bearing would that have on the monarchy today? An interesting theory I think could be entirely true is that maybe Queen Elizabeth was reluctant to divulge information about this case because the princes lives were in fact spared and they went on to have children (heirs), that would challenge the claim to the throne even to this day if there are any living descendants of the two princes. This in itself is a big enough challenge to the theory that they were murdered because there is no other reason for Queen Elizabeth to refuse further investigation of this case unless the uncovered truths could put her, her family, and their positions at risk. Say Edward IV died when his son Edward V was older, old enough to become king, would key historical events like the rise of Richard III and the War of the Roses even have happened? And if that’s the case, it would have affected the entire lineup of succession to the throne even to this day.
Contrasting this, Sir Thomas More and other important figures from this time have written accounts stating that the princes were murdered, but most of these were not written until after the fall of Richard III. With that being said many scholars who support the belief that the princes were not murdered, say that most of these accounts are simply Tudor propaganda post the War of the Roses and the defeat of Richard III by Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Another possible seed of Tudor propaganda is Shakespeare’s play Richard III. It portrays Richard as deceitful, manipulative, and bloodthirsty to be king. Both of these works support the claim that the princes were murdered. However, as I have previously mentioned, they were written by two men who were not in favor of Richard III and had no issues slandering his name, especially in favor of the Tudor king they were ruled under who could have very well ended their lives if they went against him. I can support this claim because Shakespeare actually pulled most of his inspiration for writing this play from the accounts of Sir Thomas More, which have no fact other than hearsay supporting them. Sir Thomas More’s accounts of how Richard III was in terms of his traits and behaviors, and how he ordered the deaths of the princes in the tower, is highly speculated to be Tudor propaganda as well. He served Henry VIII (a Tudor monarch) as Lord High Chancellor of England from 1529 – 1532. This alone would mean any accounts of the Yorkist King Richard written by More, are unequivocally biased being that the House of Tudor and the House of York (Richard III’s house) did not get along.
Previously I had mentioned that the English Royal family has historically not been in favor of investigation into the prince’s fates. With that being said, another pivotal point that adds definition to my argument is the discovery of the prince’s bones. In 1674, two sets of skeletal remains were found under a staircase in the Tower of London. King Charles II proclaimed that these bones belonged to the princes in the tower and they were almost immediately laid to rest in an urn in Westminster Abbey. It seems very suspicious that the bones were identified with extreme haste in order to “close” a case that still to this day leaves the world pondering an answer. However, in 1933 the bones were exhumed for archaeological analysis. They did in fact find that the bones belonged to two children about the same age as the princes, but they couldn’t determine the sex based off of the remains. This in itself aids the theory that they were possibly spared. The older child’s bones (presumed to belong to Edward V) showed evidence of an aggressive disease that would leave one’s face incredibly deformed and the disease also has a high probability of leading to death. This evidence would show on the princes face eventually while he was still alive. Not only do records of the prince’s physical features exhibit no claims of anything of this nature, but also Prince Edward V’s doctor has no record of the prince having any such disease. This fact alone is enough to determine that these bones have little to almost no probability of belonging to the princes in the tower and could possibly explain the royal family’s reluctance towards further investigation.
There have been requests made to exhume the bones again for further DNA and carbon dating analyses, but the English monarchy has refused these requests. Of course anyone can’t help but to wonder why. They would most certainly benefit from the simple explanation that Richard III had the princes murdered. What could these hundreds of years old bones tell us that could jeopardize anything of relevance to the crown? If the monarchy is hiding anything in regards to this case, it definitely is not the simple solution that these two young princes were murdered by a power hungry usurper, but possibly something that could divulge hundreds of years worth of secrets that would change the face of the English crown forever. Those who possess a proclivity towards knowledge of the history of the rivalry between the houses of Tudor and York need not be told how it highlights every claim in regards to the fate of the princes in the tower.
References
The mystery of the princes in the tower. TheCollector. (2021, November 3). https://www.thecollector.com/princes-in-the-tower-mystery/
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
Leslau, J. (1988, December). The princes in the Tower | Moreana. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/more.1988.25.2-3.7
Shakespeare, W. (1593). Richard III: Entire play. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardiii/full.html
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
The Mystery of the Princes in the Tower
Throughout history there has been many speculations as to what happened to the princes in the tower. Although this is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in history, not many people are too familiar with this case. The English monarchy has always been at odds in terms of the succession of the English throne. In this case, we are traveling back to the reign of Edward IV. Edward IV belonged to the house of York, and with his wife Elizabeth Woodville, he had two sons, Edward V, and Richard of Shrewsbury. These two boys would go on to be known as the princes who were imprisoned in the tower of London.
—Fails to engage any reader not yet familiar with the “Princes in the Tower.” Grabbing attention would be so easy. “According to Shakespeare’s play Richard III, the young knight Sir James Tyrrell, on the orders of the paranoid King Richard, MURDERED the two young princes in the Tower of London because they had claims to his throne.”
—That’s an opening. Once you establish that, you can backfill the historical details, and your observations about the conflicting opinions popular through the years, if you wish.
I have to see a tutoring student now. Back later. Fix that opening.
Thank you for the feedback! I’m at work now I should be getting off around 6 (fingers crossed!) so when I get home I will fix that up. Now can I use what you provided me with or do I need to have a different opening sentence than what you wrote with the same type of declaration?
After the death of Edward IV, his brother Richard (who will later be known as King Richard III) descended into London and assumed the throne. After this, Edward’s two young sons were locked up in the tower of London, never to be seen again. This is where the mystery itself starts to blossom because in reality, the princes only had two options for their fate. Many people seem to believe that Richard had them murdered to strengthen his claim to the throne, whereas others believe that he stripped them of all titles, spared their lives, and allowed them to live out their days in exile under aliases.
—These facts, I guess, are all correct, but you don’t color the facts with even the obvious intrigue. Many readers will not automatically understand the common succession pattern. Would Edward’s sons have become King if Richard had not “descended” into London? Shouldn’t you identify his descent as an attempt to USURP? What’s the meaning of going with the passive voice for “were locked up”? Can’t you cast some light or shade on how and why they were imprisoned? Were there charges?
Both of these theories can be questioned, and argued, but the most sensible aspect to look at this from is, which theory is more plausible. Looking at this case from the perspective of presuming the princes were murdered, the only really solid motive for this is that it rids Richard of the true heirs to the crown, strengthening his claim to usurp his nephew’s rightful throne. You can argue this by thinking in a perspective that requisites there is no solid evidence that the princes were murdered and there is also no evidence that the princes weren’t able to escape and live in exile. Those two statements are the same exact point made from two opposing theories.
—It’s early for me to make style recommendations, but I’m going to break my rule here and streamline your paragraph a bit:
As I read your fourth paragraph, I begin to ask myself, “what makes one theory more plausible than another?” In other words, how would I define plausibility?
—Is it the explanation that most people would instinctively find reasonable?
—Is it the explanation that is supported by the most factual evidence?
—Is it the explanation that requires the fewest number of characters, the least complications, the smallest conspiracy?
—Is it the simplest explanation?
—Is it the explanation with the most credible witnesses or advocates?
—Is it the explanation that people with NO VESTED INTEREST in either explanation find the most persuasive?
—Is it the explanation that people believe DESPITE their DEEP VESTED INTEREST in a contrary explanation?
Are there any opportunities in what you know about the case to use any of the above criteria? If so, I think it would help to use the list or some of its components as a way to organize your observations AND make the essay feel a bit more Definitional.
How does Elizabeth’s reluctance to investigate meet those criteria? If you FIRST establish that you want to evaluate the CREDIBILITY of witnesses, especially those with motives, as a criteria for judging PLAUSIBILITY, then her fear of surprise heirs popping up will slip into the slot you’ve prepared for it.
Contrasting this, Sir Thomas More and other important figures from this time have written accounts stating that the princes were murdered, but most of these were not written until after the fall of Richard III. With that being said many scholars who support the belief that the princes were not murdered, say that most of these accounts are simply Tudor propaganda post the War of the Roses and the defeat of Richard III by Henry Tudor (Henry VII).
—You’re following my plan, but backwards. You introduce the characters and their roles first, before we know what their motivations might be, then try to backfill them. Your job is doubly hard if you first have to tell us who they are and what their relations to the throne might be WHILE AT THE SAME TIME convincing us that they had a motive to promote or suspect one theory or another.
—You haven’t clearly identified you IDEAL READER, but I guess it must be someone already familiar enough with British monarchy to understand “Tudor propaganda post the War of the Roses and he defeat of Richard III by Henry Tudor (Henry VII ).” For most of us, we won’t have a clue whether that propaganda would favor the murder or the exile theory.
Another possible seed of Tudor propaganda is Shakespeare’s play Richard III. It portrays Richard as deceitful, manipulative, and bloodthirsty to be king. I can support this claim because Shakespeare actually pulled most of his inspiration for writing this play from the accounts of Sir Thomas More, which have no fact other than hearsay supporting them.
—Well . . . you can support A CLAIM, but which one? That Shakespeare is propaganda? I don’t see it? That he portrays Richard as bloodthirsty? You bet. That he culled his opinion of Richard from More? I don’t know. You say it’s clear, I think. That because More recorded hearsay Shakespeare engaged in propaganda? That’s a LONG UNCERTAIN chain.
As I mentioned previously, Sir Thomas More’s accounts of how Richard III was in terms of his traits and behaviors, and how he ordered the deaths of the princes in the tower, is highly speculated to be Tudor propaganda as well. He served Henry VIII (a Tudor monarch) as Lord High Chancellor of England from 1529 – 1532. This alone would mean any accounts of the Yorkist King Richard written by More, are unequivocally biased.
—Similar problems. More was writing propaganda because he served a Tudor monarch? So he wrote from “party loyalty”? Is there a stronger way to phrase this? Was his livelihood at stake? His life? Was Richard still alive when More wrote his account?
Another pivotal point that adds definition to my argument is the discovery of the prince’s bones. In 1674, two sets of skeletal remains were found under a staircase in the Tower of London. King Charles II proclaimed that these bones belonged to the princes in the tower and they were almost immediately laid to rest in an urn in Westminster Abbey. It seems very suspicious that the bones were identified with extreme haste in order to “close” a case that still to this day leaves the world pondering an answer.
—So, if this paragraph began with a question or a claim that would identify which of the categories that define plausibility you’ll be examining, we’d be prepared to consider whatever physical or forensic evidence can be found. The bones, then, are a hopeful bit.
—What was the reaction in the country to the discovery? To Charles’s pronouncement? Was EVERYBODY relieved, or is he another of those “partisans” with a motivation to whitewash or denounce a particular monarch or house?
However, in 1933 the bones were exhumed for archaeological analysis. They did in fact find that the bones belonged to two children about the same age as the princes, but they couldn’t determine the sex based off of the remains. This in itself is a major hole in the theory that the princes were murdered.
—Not quite.
—If the bones were young males, the evidence would be more compelling.
—If the bones bore marks of blunt force trauma, that would be compelling, too.
—But the failure to specify gender or abuse only keeps the mystery alive. It doesn’t contradict the possibility of murder at all.
The older child’s bones (presumed to belong to Edward V) showed evidence of an aggressive disease that would leave one’s face incredibly deformed and the disease also has a high probability of leading to death. Not only do records of the prince’s physical features exhibit no claims of anything of this nature, but also Prince Edward V’s doctor has no record of the prince having any such disease. This fact alone is enough to determine that these bones have little to almost no probability of belonging to the princes in the tower.
—Hmmmm. Evidence that BY THE TIME OF DEATH the face would be disfigured?
—Or evidence that EVENTUALLY something that was evident in the bones WOULD BECOME evident in the face?
There have been requests made to exhume the bones again for further DNA and carbon dating analyses, but the English monarchy has refused these requests. Of course anyone can’t help but to wonder why. What could these hundreds of years old bones tell us that could jeopardize anything of relevance to the crown?
—This is the most compelling evidence you have, I think.
If the monarchy is hiding anything in regards to this case, it definitely is not the simple solution that these two young princes were murdered by a power hungry usurper, but possibly something that could divulge hundreds of years worth of secrets that would change the face of the English crown forever. I believe that all evidence leads to the well-shrouded secret being that the princes survived.
—Be sure to remind readers at every stage who benefits from which theory.
—A simple claim like “A straight-up murder explanation would benefit today’s monarchy best.”
—Even attentive readers get lost in the “definitely not the simple solution . . . but possibly something that could divulge” maze and may not find their way out.
There’s a gripping tale in here that will benefit from a simpler, more straightforward telling. Decide before you start who your Ideal Reader is, and let everyone else know they may not catch all the intrigues.
“Readers with knowledge of English politics will not need to be told how bitter was the rivalry between the Houses of Tudor and York,” you might say, “But it colors every historical opinion of the fate of the two princes.” That sort of thing.
Provisionally graded. Revisions are always encouraged and Regrades are always possible. Put the post into Feedback Please if you elect to revise.
I think you could have made good revisions and at the same time trimmed this piece down to 1000 words or so, but every word you added creates value, so I applaud your additions. If you still have time and energy for further revisions, break your long paragraphs into their logical parts (one main idea per paragraph) and convert all those pesky Rhetorical Questions into bold clear claims.
Regraded.