For over five centuries, the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower has stood as one of history‘s most haunting unsolved mysteries. In 1483, 12-year-old King Edward V and his 9-year-old brother Richard, Duke of York, vanished within the walls of the Tower of London, where they had been sent by their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Not long after, Richard had himself crowned King Richard III. The young princes were never seen again, and for generations, the finger of blame has pointed squarely at Richard III as the mastermind behind their murder.
The accusation of Richard as the princes‘ killer was immortalized by influential Tudor-era writers like Sir Thomas More, who claimed the boys were smothered to death on Richard‘s orders and buried "at the stair foot, metely deep in the ground under a great heap of stones." When two small skeletons were discovered in the Tower in 1674, they seemed to confirm More‘s account. The skeletons were presumed to be the princes and interred in Westminster Abbey, with a monument labeling them as victims of their "unnatural uncle." This cemented Richard III‘s villainous reputation as a ruthless child-killer who would stop at nothing to seize power.
Alternative Suspects and Theories
However, the traditional narrative accusing Richard III has not gone unchallenged. Over the years, various theories have proposed alternative suspects or fates for the vanished princes:
-
Some have pointed the finger at Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, Richard III‘s right-hand man who later rebelled against him. In this version, Buckingham could have had the princes murdered to curry favor with Richard or advance his own ambitions.
-
Others have even implicated Henry VII, who defeated Richard to take the throne and founded the Tudor dynasty. Killing the princes would have removed potential rival claimants. However, Henry never explicitly accused Richard of the crime, raising questions.
-
A few accounts have suggested that the princes‘ mother, Elizabeth Woodville, may have sent them abroad in secret to protect them from political turmoil. However, this seems unlikely given her later actions supporting Henry VII.
-
Another theory proposes that one or both princes may have died of natural causes in the Tower, with their deaths covered up to avoid political instability.
Despite these alternative proposals, no definitive evidence has emerged to displace Richard III as the prime suspect in the minds of most historians and the public. The case seemed doomed to remain an unsolvable mystery, with scant hope of uncovering new clues five centuries later. But all that changed with the launch of the Missing Princes Project.
A New Investigation
In 2016, historian Philippa Langley assembled a team of researchers, investigators, and archival experts to reopen the case of the lost princes. Langley had previously led the successful search to locate Richard III‘s long-lost grave site. While some took that discovery as the final confirmation of Richard‘s guilt, Langley was not convinced the case against him for the princes‘ murder was proven. She resolved to reconstruct the events of 1483 and examine all available evidence with the thoroughness and objectivity of a modern cold case investigation.
Rather than starting with the presumption of Richard‘s guilt, Langley and her team combed through documentary evidence from 1483-1486 with a fresh eye. By cross-referencing fragmentary records from archives as far afield as France, Belgium, Austria, and Portugal, the researchers uncovered tantalizing clues that began to chip away at the traditional story.
As Langley describes in her book "The Princes in the Tower: Solving History‘s Greatest Cold Case," she was astonished to find "incontrovertible proof" that 12-year-old Edward V was alive during the reign of Henry VII, long after his supposed murder. A financial document from 1487 Lille details payments for weapons intended for an invasion force led by "Edward V" to retake the English throne. Langley writes:
"Here was Edward V, reportedly killed in 1483 but now demanding pikes for his army as he fought to win back his crown four years later. The delivery note was signed at the highest level by three of the most powerful men in Europe, who were eyewitnesses to events. This was a serious game changer."
Another stunning discovery was a note, tucked away in archives in Holland, purportedly written by Edward‘s younger brother Richard, Duke of York. In the note, Richard describes in his own words how he escaped the Tower and fled abroad with loyal retainers. Handwriting analysis has supported the authenticity of the note as a genuine 15th century document.
The fate of Richard, Duke of York after his escape has been harder to trace definitively than his older brother Edward V. However, Langley argues that a web of evidence, including an intriguing letter from the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, suggests the younger prince took refuge with the royal court in Burgundy. The letter describes Maximilian meeting the young Duke of York in person and offering him assistance to return to England.
Credible New Evidence?
These archival discoveries are extraordinary – but are they the real deal? Langley and her team went to great lengths to have the evidence verified, subjecting the documents to multiple expert analyses. Respected authorities like Dr. Janina Ramirez at Oxford University have studied high-resolution scans of the documents and supported their authenticity as legitimate 15th century records.
Other historians who have reviewed Langley‘s findings, such as Dr. Jonathan Foyle and Ashdown-Hill, have called the new evidence "credible" and "highly persuasive." However, some remain skeptical, arguing that the evidence is not conclusive enough to overturn the long-standing account of Richard III‘s guilt. Historian Michael Hicks has pushed back, suggesting the documents could refer to pretenders rather than the real princes. But Langley counters that several contemporary chronicles do refer to pretenders, and the documents her team uncovered make a clear distinction, explicitly naming Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.
Perhaps one of the most compelling corroborations of the survival theory comes not from any single "smoking gun" document but the actions and inactions of key figures at the time. As Langley explains:
"Once you put together the jigsaw puzzle of their movements and decisions, you realize our understanding has been built on a false premise. It becomes obvious that several people who were closely involved knew the princes were alive."
For example, Henry VII‘s actions after taking the throne, including significant delays and targeted arrests, suggest a frantic search for the missing princes. And the princes‘ mother, Elizabeth Woodville, initially supported Henry VII but later seems to have withdrawn that support – a puzzling choice if she believed Henry‘s regime had saved her sons from their murderous uncle. These threads, woven together with the new documentary evidence, convinced Langley that the 500-year-old case against Richard III is unraveling.
"The Greatest Whodunnit in British History"
Even if the princes did survive beyond 1483, one gnawing question remains: what ultimately became of them? Langley acknowledges that the final chapter of their story is still unknown, and the investigation is ongoing. One theory suggests Edward V could have died in the failed 1487 invasion attempt. As for Richard, Duke of York, a promising lead places him in the court of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, but his trail runs cold after 1500.
"I have no doubt that Edward was alive and fighting to regain his throne in 1487," Langley reflects in an interview. "His brother Richard also unquestionably got out of the Tower. But there are still missing pieces in their story after those points. We may never answer every single question about their fates. However, what we have categorically uncovered is that Richard III was not guilty of their murder in the Tower."
Langley is under no illusions that her explosive claims will be accepted by all. "The idea that the princes in the Tower survived is extraordinary. This is why it requires extraordinary evidence," she acknowledges. "I‘m confident the Multiple-source verifications we‘ve undertaken so far meet that high standard. But study and debate will certainly continue."
She emphasizes that the search for the lost princes is far from over: "Do I want to find out where they ended their days and if possible, to find their graves? Of course. That would be the final piece of physical evidence. But I‘m thrilled with what we‘ve been able to uncover so far. It‘s already rewriting a key chapter in British history."
Indeed, if Langley and her team are correct, the implications are profound. The Tudors‘ claim to the English throne rested in part on the narrative of Richard III as a murderous usurper who had to be overthrown. If Richard did not kill his nephews after all, it arguably makes Henry VII‘s seizure of power less justified and heroic.
More fundamentally, it would transform Richard III‘s legacy and historical reputation. For centuries, Richard has been demonized as one of history‘s great villains, a moral monster who killed his own kin out of boundless ambition. Various defenders have tried to rehabilitate Richard‘s character over the years. But even the most ardent Ricardians have struggled to overcome the assumption that he must have had his nephews killed, even if they argue his actions were no worse than other medieval nobles. If Langley‘s evidence definitively proves Richard‘s innocence in the princes‘ disappearance, one of the most sensational murder charges in history will be quashed.
There is a long way to go to achieve that definitive proof and historical consensus. But that is the promise and potential of the Missing Princes Project – to right an infamous injustice and rewrite a long-closed chapter in history. As Langley sees it, the enduring fascination with the Princes in the Tower flows from the universal revulsion at the idea of innocent children falling victim to the machinations of power-hungry adults. It is why she and so many others are driven to take up the princes‘ cause, even five centuries later.
"This is not just the greatest whodunnit in British history," Langley reflects. "It‘s the greatest cold case ever. Because if we‘re right, it means two little boys, brutally deprived of their birthright, have finally had some justice. It won‘t bring them back, but it will bring back the truth. And when you hear people say it‘s too late, it was too long ago, you can never solve a 500-year-old case – well, we‘re proving right now: yes, you can."
