What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York
The story of the Princes in the Tower is one of history's most enduring, poignant and romanticised tales. But were the princes really murdered? David Baldwin presents a fresh new approach to the mystery and reveals, for the first time, the true fate of the younger prince, Richard, Duke of York.
On 22 December 1550 an old bricklayer named Richard Plantagenet was buried at Eastwell in Kent. Unusually for a bricklayer, he had been able to read Latin and, when pressed, he had claimed to be a natural son of King Richard III and to have met him the day before the Battle of Bosworth. Yet had he simply been Richard III's bastard he would have been styled 'of Gloucester' or given the name of his birthplace. Richard III openly acknowledged and provided for his other bastards. Why did he not do the same for Richard Plantagenet? Most tellingly, where is the evidence that Prince Richard actually died? In an original and intriguing scenario, David Baldwin argues that, while some elements of Richard Plantagenet's story may be authentic, it is possible that he dared not reveal his real identity - that he was in fact Richard, Duke of York, the rightful king.
David Baldwin has searched contemporary documents to unearth the clues that underpin his theory and has visited all the places associated with Richard Plantagenet. In doing so, he has opened up an entirely new line of investigation and exonerated Richard HI of the greatest of the crimes imputed to him. Dead princes were a potential embarrassment, but a living prince would have been a real danger and a closely guarded secret, not only in Richard's reign but in the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII.
On 22 December 1550 an old bricklayer named Richard Plantagenet was buried at Eastwell in Kent. Unusually for a bricklayer, he had been able to read Latin and, when pressed, he had claimed to be a natural son of King Richard III and to have met him the day before the Battle of Bosworth. Yet had he simply been Richard III's bastard he would have been styled 'of Gloucester' or given the name of his birthplace. Richard III openly acknowledged and provided for his other bastards. Why did he not do the same for Richard Plantagenet? Most tellingly, where is the evidence that Prince Richard actually died? In an original and intriguing scenario, David Baldwin argues that, while some elements of Richard Plantagenet's story may be authentic, it is possible that he dared not reveal his real identity - that he was in fact Richard, Duke of York, the rightful king.
David Baldwin has searched contemporary documents to unearth the clues that underpin his theory and has visited all the places associated with Richard Plantagenet. In doing so, he has opened up an entirely new line of investigation and exonerated Richard HI of the greatest of the crimes imputed to him. Dead princes were a potential embarrassment, but a living prince would have been a real danger and a closely guarded secret, not only in Richard's reign but in the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII.
220 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 2007
13 people are currently reading
583 people want to read
About the author
David Baldwin
10 books10 followersDavid Baldwin was a historian that specialised in late medieval history, particularly the Wars of the Roses, and was a lecturer at both the University of Leicester and the University of Nottingham. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 2012.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 19, 2013
This isn't literary fiction so I don't feel bad about giving this one 2 stars. Mostly, I was disappointed by the premise that if Richard of York had survived, he ended up as a bricklayer. Nothing against bricklayers, I mean what would we do without walls to lean on, but the scenario hardly makes the heart beat a bit faster, does it? And why is it always Richard who generates the interest in the debate on the two Princes; is it a tacit acceptance that Edward died, perhaps, whilst young Richard was spirited away. Goodness knows. The protagonists certainly do, but the snag is they're all dead, and these kinds of books can while away a few fantasy hours, whilst essentially bringing us all back to the place we started -- that we haven't got a clue what happened to the younger prince, or the older one, for that matter. Supposition, imagination and speculation are entertaining components in the mystery, but they hardly solve the mystery. One thought, though; get those bones tested again, they've been hanging around in that urn since Charles II's time and although they were subject to tests in the 1930's, forensics have moved on a bit since then. At the very least, modern tests could establish sex and age; a good start, to the say the least. It's never too late to unravel old mysteries....with facts. I mean, after all, it's amazing what you can turn up in a car-park....
December 2, 2025
I guess that I should give up reading books by David Baldwin, because so far I haven't had much luck with them. I quite liked his biography about Richard III that, despite some traditionalisms, presented a balanced portrait of the king and some interesting new findings. But I've tried with The Neville Sisters, and now with this one, and I didn't like either. Back to the present book, it has mainly two problems: is totally biased against Richard III, even if in truth, again, Baldwin is no Richard's hater... but you can't just fltatly tell me that no conspiracy by the Woodvilles to seize power existed. On the contrary it was Richard who plotted against the Woodvilles! Or choose not to cite the Portuguese double marriage in a 2007 book, just to keep on hinting about a relationship between Richard III and Elizabeth of York.
The other problem is not so much the assumption (given as fact) that Richard of York survived, on that I agree, but the fact that instead of exploring the much more regarded Perkin Warbeck's theory, the author chooses to stick with the pure fantasy of Richard of Eastwell being Prince Richard turned bricklayer and allowed to live in obscurity by Henry VII. With no basis and no critical analysis of the 1700s fantasy tale that first mentioned this story. Or, at least, give both theories with pros and cons! You can't just tell me, ipso facto that Perkin was the son of a boatman, but yes, Richard of Eastwell was Prince Richard, because you say so. Are you an historian or a conspiracy theorist? For me is a nay, and I don't think I will read more books by Baldwin.
The other problem is not so much the assumption (given as fact) that Richard of York survived, on that I agree, but the fact that instead of exploring the much more regarded Perkin Warbeck's theory, the author chooses to stick with the pure fantasy of Richard of Eastwell being Prince Richard turned bricklayer and allowed to live in obscurity by Henry VII. With no basis and no critical analysis of the 1700s fantasy tale that first mentioned this story. Or, at least, give both theories with pros and cons! You can't just tell me, ipso facto that Perkin was the son of a boatman, but yes, Richard of Eastwell was Prince Richard, because you say so. Are you an historian or a conspiracy theorist? For me is a nay, and I don't think I will read more books by Baldwin.
June 13, 2022
Note: This review is from 2014 and had been posted on a now defunct site.
The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York
By David Baldwin
Originally reviewed in 2014
Trying to get back into the habit of reviewing the books I read. Last night, I finished The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York -- one of the so-called Princes in the Tower -- by David Baldwin.
I previously read Baldwin's biography of Richard III, and found him to be fair and even handed when it came to writing about this controversial monarch. These days, there seem to be two camps when it comes to R3 -- either he was the vilest, most evil man to have ever worn a crown, or he was a saint. I don't buy into either, but believe him to have been a man of his times, a man with good qualities but one who could also be ruthless when he deemed it necessary.
But on to this book...
No one knows what really happened to the "Princes in the Tower." Did they die, and if so, was it from natural causes (illness) or were they murdered (by a variety of suspects). Did one or both survive, and if so, what happened to them?
This book offers one historian's theory as to what happened. The author, David Baldwin, doesn't claim to have the final answer to the question as to whether Richard of York, the younger of the two boys, survived, but does believe that there is a strong possibility that he did and lived out his life as Richard of Eastwell. An interesting theory, and as good as any other floating about out there.
The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York
By David Baldwin
Originally reviewed in 2014
Trying to get back into the habit of reviewing the books I read. Last night, I finished The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York -- one of the so-called Princes in the Tower -- by David Baldwin.
I previously read Baldwin's biography of Richard III, and found him to be fair and even handed when it came to writing about this controversial monarch. These days, there seem to be two camps when it comes to R3 -- either he was the vilest, most evil man to have ever worn a crown, or he was a saint. I don't buy into either, but believe him to have been a man of his times, a man with good qualities but one who could also be ruthless when he deemed it necessary.
But on to this book...
No one knows what really happened to the "Princes in the Tower." Did they die, and if so, was it from natural causes (illness) or were they murdered (by a variety of suspects). Did one or both survive, and if so, what happened to them?
This book offers one historian's theory as to what happened. The author, David Baldwin, doesn't claim to have the final answer to the question as to whether Richard of York, the younger of the two boys, survived, but does believe that there is a strong possibility that he did and lived out his life as Richard of Eastwell. An interesting theory, and as good as any other floating about out there.
Read
October 4, 2023Another theory about the fate of the "Princes in the Tower." The speculation holds together well, in spite of the lack of any proof. Mainly, the basis of this theory is that Prince Richard of York disappeared from history and Richard Grey of Colchester appeared in history in the same year. There is an engaging image of an aging itinerate bricklayer hiding away to read Latin after his workday. The author reiterates frequently that there is no proof or any way to prove his theory, but he strings together an intriguing story of political danger and one man's submission to fate.
September 5, 2018
A highly-literate and clearly high-born man named Richard of Eastwell, working as a bricklayer, brought up and nurtured in St John's Abbey at Colchester, told a story that he was the illegitimate son of Richard III (thus posing no threat to the Tudor kings). Henry VII had special concerns about Colchester during the early years of his reign; a number of people very significant to the Princes in the Tower made unnecessary visits to Colchester; and a tomb exists dedicated to Richard Plantagenet, the name by which Richard of Eastwell became known - consistent with his own claims of being Richard III's bastard.
These and many other observations and facts are skilfully stitched together by David Baldwin to support his theory that Prince Richard, the younger of the Princes in the Tower, survived and lived to a good age, choosing a humble livelihood, and claiming to be Richard III's illegitimate son in order to protect himself; and this was well known by many close to him and by the Tudor kings; and kept as a dangerous secret.
History has focussed on the story of the Princes' murder by Richard III. But is the truth more complex than that? Was Richard III innocent of this particular crime? Do David Baldwin's marshalled facts and skilful arguments consititute proof? We still remain unsure.
But what a fascinating book this is. I thoroughly enjoyed following the way Baldwin makes his argument, based on such evidence as how certain people would have behaved, given what is known about them; what would have been in their interest; and how certain individuals may have successfully propagated a fiction which we believe to this day.
History is of course constantly being revised, according to new evidence brought forward during the researches of historians. And other historians have advanced alternative theories about the Princes in the Tower, and what happened to them, which must be considered alongside David Baldwin's. But when can something be considered the truth? Only when incontrovertable facts and documents are brought forward; only when bones are unearthed and DNA tests carried out on them, can we reach near certainty.
Meanwhile we must always consider how we may still be influenced by Tudor propaganda; which may account for the current huge interest in history books and novels about their dynasty.
These and many other observations and facts are skilfully stitched together by David Baldwin to support his theory that Prince Richard, the younger of the Princes in the Tower, survived and lived to a good age, choosing a humble livelihood, and claiming to be Richard III's illegitimate son in order to protect himself; and this was well known by many close to him and by the Tudor kings; and kept as a dangerous secret.
History has focussed on the story of the Princes' murder by Richard III. But is the truth more complex than that? Was Richard III innocent of this particular crime? Do David Baldwin's marshalled facts and skilful arguments consititute proof? We still remain unsure.
But what a fascinating book this is. I thoroughly enjoyed following the way Baldwin makes his argument, based on such evidence as how certain people would have behaved, given what is known about them; what would have been in their interest; and how certain individuals may have successfully propagated a fiction which we believe to this day.
History is of course constantly being revised, according to new evidence brought forward during the researches of historians. And other historians have advanced alternative theories about the Princes in the Tower, and what happened to them, which must be considered alongside David Baldwin's. But when can something be considered the truth? Only when incontrovertable facts and documents are brought forward; only when bones are unearthed and DNA tests carried out on them, can we reach near certainty.
Meanwhile we must always consider how we may still be influenced by Tudor propaganda; which may account for the current huge interest in history books and novels about their dynasty.
September 13, 2010
After having read a bunch of historical fiction concerning the War of the Roses, I wanted to follow up with some non-fiction in order to get the real story so to speak. I was interested in the story of the lost princes, Edward V and his brother Prince Richard, who may or may not have been killed in the Tower of London by one of many historical figures. This book tries to show that the younger of the princes, Richard, actually survived and lived out his life as a brick layer. What a horrible read though!! I finally just gave up and skimmed the last chapter trying to find anything resembling proof. Oh well, I know there are other books out there. If you're ever tempted to read up on these poor kids who became pawns in a cut-throat, winner-take-all period of English history...pick up any book but this.
January 2, 2021
David Baldwin's case for the survival of Richard, Duke of York is an interesting and quick read. He raises some interesting points and does provide scenarios as far as who Richard, Duke of York might have been had he continued to live under an assumed identity.
I had two main issues with this book. The first being that although he makes clear in the beginning that his book is strictly meant to be speculation as to the prince's survival, there are stretches of text where he writes as though it is fact that Richard, Duke of York did survive well into old age. This includes describing how his family members would have interacted with him, as well as friends and potential enemies.
The other issue was that I felt Mr. Baldwin had to stretch pretty far to make his case in certain areas to the point that some arguments didn't seem plausible. Like everyone else, I do not know what did or didn't happen to either of the Princes in the Tower, but it seems highly unlikely that Henry VII would have knowingly allowed someone with a greater claim to the throne to live. It seems even more unlikely that he would have allowed several other people to be aware of it without silencing them or Richard for that matter, and if so many people allegedly knew, that someone would not have spilled the beans. Would Henry VII have not made either of his sons aware either?
His argument that people would have hardly turned out for a 12-year boy king also doesn't hold water. While Richard III was potentially bolstered by the idea that people weary of war were not eager to see a child on the throne, Henry VII's claim was far more tenuous than Richard III's claim. It is quite likely that people would have turned out for one of Edward IV's sons against Henry VII. The Lambert Simnel affair and subsequent situation with Perkin Warbeck (although Warbeck was older) would not have happened otherwise.
Again, I think this book brings up some intriguing suggestions, but it does stretch the limits of plausibility on more than one occasion. There are other books I've read that I feel do a better job of explaining and arguing the possibilities of what might have happened to the princes, but for fans of this chapter in English history, Mr. Baldwin's book does provide some interesting food for thought.
I had two main issues with this book. The first being that although he makes clear in the beginning that his book is strictly meant to be speculation as to the prince's survival, there are stretches of text where he writes as though it is fact that Richard, Duke of York did survive well into old age. This includes describing how his family members would have interacted with him, as well as friends and potential enemies.
The other issue was that I felt Mr. Baldwin had to stretch pretty far to make his case in certain areas to the point that some arguments didn't seem plausible. Like everyone else, I do not know what did or didn't happen to either of the Princes in the Tower, but it seems highly unlikely that Henry VII would have knowingly allowed someone with a greater claim to the throne to live. It seems even more unlikely that he would have allowed several other people to be aware of it without silencing them or Richard for that matter, and if so many people allegedly knew, that someone would not have spilled the beans. Would Henry VII have not made either of his sons aware either?
His argument that people would have hardly turned out for a 12-year boy king also doesn't hold water. While Richard III was potentially bolstered by the idea that people weary of war were not eager to see a child on the throne, Henry VII's claim was far more tenuous than Richard III's claim. It is quite likely that people would have turned out for one of Edward IV's sons against Henry VII. The Lambert Simnel affair and subsequent situation with Perkin Warbeck (although Warbeck was older) would not have happened otherwise.
Again, I think this book brings up some intriguing suggestions, but it does stretch the limits of plausibility on more than one occasion. There are other books I've read that I feel do a better job of explaining and arguing the possibilities of what might have happened to the princes, but for fans of this chapter in English history, Mr. Baldwin's book does provide some interesting food for thought.
June 11, 2021
This catches me between two of my biggest interests: historic true crime and royal genealogy. I've read a number of books about "the princes in the Tower" and have others in my TBR stack, and I'm glad I took the time to read this one. I appreciated the fact that Baldwin didn't go back through the entire War of the Roses to puff up his page count as many, many writers do--this is a relatively short book--and it offered what may be an answer to the mystery, though I probably wouldn't take his theory nearly as seriously as he does. Will we ever have the real answer? I doubt it. But I wonder why Baldwin takes so easily the notion that Edward V died of natural causes. I can't remember reading about him being ill at any point in his young life. And if his supposition is that a great many people had pieces of the puzzle at the very least, I can't believe they all somehow agreed to keep the truth so very quiet.
May 18, 2018
The book blurb implied that there was new evidence on the lost princes that the writer would tell us about but in reality, it was general speculation and I felt the book was a bit vague. It explored various people related to the princes in more detail than it does the princes.
March 21, 2020
It's all circumstantial evidence but it may be that Richard Grey, the bricklayer of Colchester, was actually Prince Richard, the second son of King Edward IV of Britian - one of the Princes in the Tower.
July 11, 2017
It was a interesting theory
November 1, 2018
Tried to read but was confusing and not straight forward. Didn't finish.
December 10, 2020
Somewhat long-winded... and the number of characters with the same name is mind-boggling - and differences not always clearly explained.
August 27, 2016
The theory put forward in this book is reliant on vast amounts of speculation. That said it is an interesting theory and certainly no worse than many of the others that have been published over the years. However the author's style did not gel with me at all, so I couldn't rate it at 5, and the fact that some of the information was presented in a rather disjointed manner knocked another star off for me.
February 3, 2013
Have been interested in the Princes in the Tower for years and was intrigued by the concept. However the book is very disappointing and is a bit of a hybrid of fact/assumption. A lot of attributing of emotions which is out of place. The first section prior to the disappearance from the Tower is ok but the next portion is not convincing .
January 4, 2013
The theory could be quite interesting, I like mysteries, but I was disappointed from the absence of proofs. So in the end the book remains halfway between history and historical fiction, reaching neither one nor the other.
August 16, 2009
A whim and a fantasy best describe this book. Interesting possibility, but not convincing enoough in its research or theory.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews