Yorkist Pretenders to the Tudor Throne: Who Were Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck?

by Kieran Molloy

Explores the identities of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, questioning their legitimacy and examining their rebellions against Henry VII.

For more than a decade after the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Henry VII's fledgling dynasty was threatened by two Yorkist claimants. Lambert Simnel's rebellion, though short-lived, ended at the Battle of Stoke in 1487, a far bloodier affair than Bosworth two years earlier. The second rebellion, centred on Perkin Warbeck, ended in ignominious surrender but was the fulcrum of a power struggle involving the major European powers for most of the 1490s.

Who were these two men? Were they the imposters claimed by the King and generally accepted as such by most historians, or were they the nobles they claimed to be - Edward, Earl of Warwick and Richard, second son of Edward IV? What became of the other “Prince in the Tower”, Edward V? Were Edward IV's two sons really murdered by their uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or were both alive and involved in the two rebellions? Was there any link between the rebellions, or were they the last desperate and uncoordinated rolls of the dice by remnants of the House of York unwilling to accept the new Tudor regime? Do we really know what became of Simnel and Warbeck after their rebellions failed other than what Henry VII told us?

Part I of this book examines the evidence for the identity of Lambert Simnel while Part II recreates a courtroom trial for Perkin Warbeck allowing you, the reader, to act as jury.

Genres: History

224 pages, Hardcover

Published February 13, 2025

Reviews

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Henry VII's reign had it's share of challenges - supposed pretenders to the throne being a major one. Henry's reign was challenged by two people of note, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Were one or both of these men one of the ill-fated "Princes in the Tower"? This book explores the identities of the two men in the hope of shedding some light on one of the greatest mysteries in English history.

I enjoyed the first part of the book, which focused mostly on Lambert Simnel - I thought it was well researched and written in an easy to read manner. The format of the second portion of the book piqued my interest as the author wrote it in more of a play format, the setting of which being the trial of Perkin Warbeck. However, it was a little confusing and hard to follow at times, so I was not the biggest fan of this section unfortunately. Overall I think it is definitely an interesting book that I would recommend to anyone interested in this period of time, I just think the play/trial style in the second part might not be for everyone.

Thank you to NetGalley and the publishers for an advanced copy.

[Shannan Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I enjoyed the first part of the book which focused on Lambert Simnel and how he could fool people into believing he was Edward Plantagenet. I like how it was written in a typical biographical argumentative style which was fine. The author was able to prove their theory in this section. The second part went in another direction, in the form of a play, when Perkin Warbeck was discussed. I did not care for this style was hard to follow. I understand the author wanted to try something different. But for me, it did not quite meet the goal of the first half. This would be a good book for Tudor and Plantagenet enthusiasts. But for casual readers, the second part can be confusing in the second part.

[Theediscerning · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's the subtitle that is key to this book – "Who Were Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck?". In outlining the author's thoughts and opinions on the matter we don't get nearly as much of the daily ins and outs of either person's history as we might think – none of the nuts and bolts of the chronological record. The book focuses instead on just recapping the who and how and why of it all. We start, of course, with Simnel – well, with matters pertaining to the Princes in the Tower, actually, and then someone crowned King of England in Dublin, even if we cannot tell at this remove who or what regnal name and number he was given. This came to the attention of Henry VII, who sent people to check him out – and who found someone they decided was the real deal – ie someone ahead of Henry in line to the throne. Within a year or two the real last War of the Roses was being fought – and someone was taken from the battlefield and into the Tudor world.

What clouds many an issue is that this person was called John at the time, not Lambert, but eventually Lambert became the name the person was known as – pardoned by Henry and allowed to live and work in the royal household. The author picks on many relevant points about the whole matter, from who wanted whom to have survived and to be the rightful claimant to the crown, to how on earth it was that someone living in Ireland since being a toddler sounded like a lost English royal. When the conclusion is reached it's done sensibly and nicely, even if it seems at once both the most reasonable and logical option but also the least plausible.

The claim is here that actually the Perkin Warbeck case, a much longer-lasting matter for the Tudors, is part of the same story as the Simnel affair – both have overlapping dramatis personae, and both act as signs of general anti-Tudor foment. But here, unfortunately it very much is a different tale – one told as a playscript. This really didn't work for me – copious European royal houses with their delegates arguing all the relevant matters that we really would have sought in any other manner than such a boringly pedagogical play. Archbishop Morton is lead prosecutor, demanding a jury (and by inclination, we the reader) see Warbeck as a boat-builder's son from Tournai in Flanders, groomed by diverse international interests to cause Henry trouble. His opponents are those of us who believe the grooming to have been unnecessary, and that Warbeck was actually the younger of the Princes in the Tower.

As regards the conclusions of all that, when it is finally allowed to conclude, well… I'll refrain from spelling everything out, of course, but the author here is having his cake and eating it not once but twice, and then spinning off from there into true Dan Brown territory. It's not supposition that I could shout down with evidence to the contrary, but it is a lot of supposition – and some surprising vindication for More and all that he had to say about Richard.

Our author can present history very well – the text flows, I was surprisingly able to keep track of who was who (a common fault of mine when it comes to matters Ricardian), and the copious notes and references are present to keep the breadcrumbs evident. Would many another author follow them to this conclusion? Quite assuredly not, although then why come to a book of unknowns like this wanting to see exactly the same conclusions as every book before it? This is a clever read, yet one – with the play format and the guesses it ends with – too open to it being called a farce.

[Louise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well researched, and I appreciate how the author tries to use neutral language when presenting the known facts in Part 1
(Though, reading the final discussions in Part 3, I have my suspicions whether the Author agrees with Beth more than Tom)

I will admit that I was sceptical when I got to Part II, as the author chose to debate the issue as a fictional mock trial, led by secondary school students. The idea sounded crazy but I found it to be a surprisingly effective way to highlight how many contradictions appear in the stories of The Princes in the Tower, Lambert Simbal and Perkin Warbeck, but yet there is also many connections, coincidences and facts that don't fit either side of the argument that are hard to ignore.

However, the author's attempts to inject humour, such as having some the students shouting out as members of the public gallery, didn't really work.for me and distracted me a little from the main focus of the evidence provided


Overall, I enjoyed this book and would be interested in reading more from this author.
Thank you to Netgalley and Pen & Sword for providing me with an ARC in return for my honest review

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry VII’s reign was challenged by two Yorkist pretenders, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. This book explores their identities, the rebellions they sparked, and the enduring mysteries surrounding the fate of the “Princes in the Tower” and the true nature of the Yorkist resistance to the Tudor dynasty.

This book raises the point that most of what we know about Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck comes from the narrative approved by Henry VII. Could the pretenders truly have been the sons of Edward IV? This book adds information to the theory presented in the book “The Princes in the Tower: Solving History’s Greatest Cold Case” by Philippa Langley. Like that book, it reads more like conspiracy theory than persuasive evidence. Still, it raises interesting questions.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[Melisende · Rating 2 out of 5]

The two stars are for the first part only - this was the study of Lambert Simnel, and whilst I was expecting something a bit more scholarly, this section was dealt with in an even-handed manner, providing a case for and against the various claimants.

HOWEVER, part two was a shambles and had me asking WTF?. Had this investigation into the Perkin Warbeck case continued in the same vein as part one, then this would be a three possibly four stars rated book.

This needs some serious re-thinking and re-editing before publication or your audience is lost.

[Kara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you Netgalley for an advanced copy!

I LOVED Part One - it was a wonderful reexamination of the facts and rightfully questions what "everybody knows". I think Molloy made some excellent points and a solid case for questioning the parts of the historical record that smack of pure political propaganda.

However, urgh, Part Two was a farce on every level. Molly decided to write the script for a Monty Python-esque play instead of just continuing her awesome analyses of the historical record.