Why Richard III May Not Have Killed the Princes in the Tower

It's a widely believed myth that only Richard III had the key to the north-eastern section of the White Tower, where the children were held. If only he had access, then he was the murderer, simple as that.

Of course, he wasn't the only person allowed anywhere near them. If he had been, then the Princes would have starved to death the second that Richard began his four month long royal progress through England.

Let's lay it out here right now. Richard III did not personally clothe, feed and bathe his nephews. He did not empty their chamberpot, nor conduct their school lessons. He did not act as their priest during morning mass, confession nor evening prayers. He did not nurse them, nor answer their calls, if they had a nightmare in the middle of the night. He did not stand guard outside their door, personally protecting them against intruders.

He was the King of England, and there were servants, yeomen, physicians, priests and schoolmasters for that sort of thing.

Naturally all of these people would have been vetted by Richard. There weren't a great number of them, but they had their roles to play. People with keys would have overseen their work and let them in and out.

When we say that 'Richard had the key', what we really mean is that the Constable of the Tower was actually in possession of it.  That was briefly Thomas Stanley, husband of Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry Tudor), in his capacity as Lord High Constable. Then it was Robert Brackenbury, a close ally of Richard III.

Moreover, the Constable of London could demand entrance at any time. That was Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who raised a Lancastrian rebellion against Richard III later in the year.

Richard III had the opportunity and access to kill the Princes in the Tower. But he was not the only one. Nevertheless he is the one most often fingered as the killer.  Let's look at the facts.

The story, as related by Sir Thomas More and then William Shakespeare, involved two attempts to kill Edward and Richard, with the second being successful.

On July 17th 1483, Richard appointed a long-time ally and supporter named Robert Brackenbury to the position of Constable of the Tower. This was now the man charged with the day to day care of the two royal boys.

Three days later, Richard III left Windsor to begin the tour of his realm. On July 29th, the king reached Gloucester. Now safely distanced, he dispatched a rider named John Green with a verbal message for Brackenbury back at the Tower of London.

The message asked the Constable to murder the children. But Brackenbury knelt before 'Our Lady of the Tower' (the Virgin Mary in the chapel) and swore that he would not do it, even if it meant his own death for refusing.

John Green rode away with this message. He caught up with his king at Coventry, on August 15th, and told him about Brackenbury's refusal. Richard apparently then went to the toilet. He sat there, muttering to himself, while he engaged in a long number two. His monologue was along the lines of 'who will rid me of these turbulent princes?'

A young boy - a page of the Chamber - overheard him and suggested that James Tyrrell would do the job. Tyrrell was the man who slept each night across the threshold to Richard's bedroom door. He wasn't actually there as a draught excluder. He was to ensure that no-one interrupted the king's sleep. Tyrrell was naturally looking for promotion.

Bowels cleared, Richard thanked the page for his recommendation of a murderer and promptly sent for James Tyrrell. This was a man with a criminal record, who jumped at the chance to do this thing. He was sent to London, ostensibly to collect some robes, so that Richard's son could be proclaimed Prince of Wales (in Yorkshire) in style.

(Slight verifiable discrepancy here.  Tyrrell did indeed go to London for the robes, but not on August 15th from Coventry.  The King's Wardrobe Accounts state that he left on August 30th from York.)

Sometime in early September (one historian, Alison Weir, worked out that it was September 3rd 1483), Tyrrell - with his accomplices John Deighton and Miles Forrest - arrived at the Tower of London. Brackenbury, after swearing that he'd rather die than see harm come to those children, and after undertaking a job which restricted all access to the boys, apparently just opened the door for the asking of three assassins.

Tyrrell and Deighton promptly smothered Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury with pillows as they slept.

The bodies were then carried down the spiral steps of the north-eastern tower of the White Tower, across the open courtyard, down the slope and into the gateway of the Bloody Tower. There an open grave had been prepared at the foot of the main staircase. The boys were buried with their golden robes (which must also have been conveyed to the spot), only to be uncovered in 1674, when restoration work was being undertaken in that area.

All this without the three hundred denizens of the Tower of London seeing them or suspecting a thing.

Richard himself never confirmed nor denied the death of the children. He maintained a firm 'no comment' for the remainder of his reign - a mere two years after the supposed murder took place.

Let's just say that I have some questions regarding this:

1. If Richard wanted to kill his nephews, why didn't he have a quiet word with Brackenbury to that effect before the king left London? It would have been far safer than deciding a few days later to do it. It would have cut out John Green - the middle man, whose historical role appears solely for us to know that this incident occurred.
2. Why would Richard III talk aloud to himself on the toilet about such a sensitive matter? He was the king. His chamber would be full of servants. And, for that matter, why was the king taking the counsel of a small boy?  And how did said small boy know of a local murderer?
3. What on Earth was going on with Robert Brackenbury?  One second he's on his knees in a chapel, swearing to protect the princes with his life; the next he's randomly opening the door of their chamber, at night, to three men sent to kill them. Anyone else seeing a disconnect here? At the very least, the man paid to ensure the well-being of the boys is going to have a massive blot on his resume here.
4. Was the entire population of the Tower of London - all 300 of them - struck deaf, dumb and blind? Hundreds of windows overlooked that courtyard. The old Water Gate, running through the Bloody Tower, is even today one of the main entrances into the inner area. Guards patrolled and watched from every quarter. Elizabeth Woodville had people paid to watch at all times for news of her sons. Yet not one of them a) noticed a grave being dug under the main staircase of the Bloody Tower; b) the bodies of two children coming from the princes' tower, through the most populated area of the White Tower and across to the Bloody Tower; and c) the same regarding those dazzling, golden coronation robes, which were purportedly buried with them.

But assuming that history has lost the answers to all those questions, then I still have one big concern. Murder requires a motivation. In that regard, it just doesn't add up that Richard III would want the children dead.

Ok, England probably wouldn't accept a female monarch if there were male options, but those girls could marry a prince from any royal house in Europe. They could return with a French, Spanish or Dutch army to reclaim their throne. They were just as dangerous in the succession.

Then there's Edward of Warwick, the eight year old son of George, Duke of Clarence. He was only not king at this moment, because George had rebelled against Edward IV and had his kids knocked out of the succession accordingly.

Parliament could easily overturn that attainder too.

If Richard III felt so paranoid about the two boys in the Tower of London, then he would equally have been nervous about the other SIX children between him and the throne. Instead, he made provision for their well-being, and even knighted little Edward of Warwick.

In the Tudor version of events, we're asked to believe that Richard III was simultaneously capable of killing two heirs to the throne, while pampering the other six. It makes no sense psychologically or politically. It makes no strategic sense at all.

The disappearance of the Princes in the Tower was the kind of PR disaster, which sparked rebellions in the south of England and rumors of murder on the continent. This was within his reign.

We all know what happened once the Tudors ran with the story.

The above is merely the introduction.  If you wish to watch the trial in its entirety, you may find a (backwards!) playlist here:  King Richard III - The Trial.