What do you think?
Rate this book
The Princes in the Tower
In the summer of 1483 two boys were taken into the Tower of London and were never seen again. They were no ordinary boys. One was the new King of England; the other was his brother, the Duke of York, and heir presumptive to the throne. Shortly afterwards, their uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, took the throne as Richard III. Soon after, rumours began to spread that the princes had been murdered, and that their murderer was none other than King Richard himself. Since 1483 the dispute over Richard's guilt or innocence has never abated. The accusations, which began during his own lifetime, continued through the Tudor period and beyond, remaining a source of heated debate to the present day. For much of this time it has been taken for granted that Richard murdered his nephews to clear his path to the throne, but there are other suspects. One is Henry VII, Richard's successor, who is alleged to have discovered the princes in the Tower following his victory at Bosworth. Recognising them as the rightful heirs to the throne, he ordered their deaths. More recently another suspect has come forward: Henry, Duke of Buckingham, who was motivated by personal and dynastic ambition. Yet the evidence that the princes were murdered at all is far from conclusive; could it be that one, or both, princes survived? Now, in the wake of the discovery of Richard III's remains in a car park at Leicester, it is time to revisit the question of what became of his nephews, the boys known to history as the Princes in the Tower. This study returns to the original sources, subjecting them to critical examination and presenting a ground-breaking new theory about what really happened and why.
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
5 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
About the author
Josephine Wilkinson
13 books55 followersDr Josephine Wilkinson received a First Class Honours degree from the University of Newcastle. She was the winner of the Third Year Prize for her work on The Little Apocalypse, which placed Mark chapter 13 into its historical context, and the Jewish Studies Prize for her historical study of the community at Qumran. She remained at Newcastle, earning an MPhil for her thesis on the historical John the Baptist (as close to a biography as is possible to do); her PhD traced historical traditions and legends of John the Baptist across several cultures as well as art, literature and film.
She was a scholar-in-residence at Gladstone's Library in Hawarden (formerly St Deiniol's Library), Britain's only residential library. This was founded in 1898 by the great Victorian statesman, William Gladstone. Great Britain's only Prime Ministerial library, it is based on Gladstone's personal collection. Dr Wilkinson has also held an honorary post at the University of Glasgow.
The recipient of a British Academy award, she is the author of a two volume biography of Richard III, the first volume of which, Richard III, the Young King To Be, has been published by Amberley. She is currently writing volume two. Other books are Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII's Favourite Mistress, The Early Loves of Anne Boleyn and The Princes in the Tower. She lives in the attic of a mediaeval house within the city walls of York.
Follow her blog: http://josepha-josephine-wilkinson.bl...
She was a scholar-in-residence at Gladstone's Library in Hawarden (formerly St Deiniol's Library), Britain's only residential library. This was founded in 1898 by the great Victorian statesman, William Gladstone. Great Britain's only Prime Ministerial library, it is based on Gladstone's personal collection. Dr Wilkinson has also held an honorary post at the University of Glasgow.
The recipient of a British Academy award, she is the author of a two volume biography of Richard III, the first volume of which, Richard III, the Young King To Be, has been published by Amberley. She is currently writing volume two. Other books are Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII's Favourite Mistress, The Early Loves of Anne Boleyn and The Princes in the Tower. She lives in the attic of a mediaeval house within the city walls of York.
Follow her blog: http://josepha-josephine-wilkinson.bl...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
April 27, 2023
The author has a Ph.D. in history and has published a first volume of a biography of Richard III titled Richard III: The Young King to Be.. While working on the second volume, she realized that she had to talk about the princes in the tower, but didn’t want their story to swamp her biography of Richard. She decided, instead, to publish her previous researches into the subject as a series of discrete essays. She makes no claim that it is exhaustive, and it certainly isn’t. As well as chapters on both princes, she takes a look at the usual suspects: Richard, Buckingham, John Howard, James Tyrell, and Henry VII. She specifically rejects the idea that Buckingham, Howard, or Henry were responsible for the princes murders, although it must be said that she seems to be in the camp of those who believe they were not murdered. For the most part, her analyses were not persuasive. Regarding Buckingham, she notes that Richard had tightened security at the Tower following the attempts to release the princes. This included replacing their attendants and appointing special guards to watch over them. “Given these measures, it is difficult to see how either Buckingham or his agents could have obtained access to the boys . . . .” Well, Bucky remained Constable and in favor with Richard so surely he would have been able to throw his weight around the Tower to gain access to the princes and have the dastardly deed done.
The most interesting section is the discussion about the origins of the rumors that circulated in the summer of 1483 that the princes were dead. The author opines that “the most obvious person to whom the rumor should be attributed to is Richard III” because he would realize that the proclamation that they were illegitimate would not mean that they posed no danger to him. True, and something I had not considered before, but in spreading such a rumor it seems to me Richard would receive all the ignominy but not reap the benefits. One of the main reasons I don’t believe Richard did in his nephews is his failure to show their bodies (while, of course, stating that they died of some disease, for example.) That was standard procedure in those times to prove once and for all that it would be futile to take up arms in the cause of the dear departed. Just circulating a rumor that they were dead wouldn’t do the job. In any case, the author ends up by concluding that Margaret Beaufort was probably the source of the rumors.
Although the books makes some interesting points, I came away unsatisfied, feeling that many issues were left dangling.
The most interesting section is the discussion about the origins of the rumors that circulated in the summer of 1483 that the princes were dead. The author opines that “the most obvious person to whom the rumor should be attributed to is Richard III” because he would realize that the proclamation that they were illegitimate would not mean that they posed no danger to him. True, and something I had not considered before, but in spreading such a rumor it seems to me Richard would receive all the ignominy but not reap the benefits. One of the main reasons I don’t believe Richard did in his nephews is his failure to show their bodies (while, of course, stating that they died of some disease, for example.) That was standard procedure in those times to prove once and for all that it would be futile to take up arms in the cause of the dear departed. Just circulating a rumor that they were dead wouldn’t do the job. In any case, the author ends up by concluding that Margaret Beaufort was probably the source of the rumors.
Although the books makes some interesting points, I came away unsatisfied, feeling that many issues were left dangling.
February 2, 2017
Wilkinson does her best to give a solid biography of each prince, although each is easily summed up in a chapter, and then makes her way through all the usual suspects, starting each chapter with who they were and why they had motive and how they might have had means and opportunity - and then proceeds to disprove each one as a suspect, leaving me wondering at about the 3/4's mark, jeez, who did do it then?
She, surprisingly, reaches the conclusion that not only does she feel there isn't enough evidence to legally convict any other suspects - there isn't enough evidence to prove they were dead! She ends on that rather cliffhanger note, hinting that Perkin Warbeck really was Prince Richard.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 26, 2024
A concise overview of the theories of what might've happened to the princes in the Tower. It's a fascinating historical mystery and I think this book did a great job at examining the case in an unbiased manner.
April 3, 2019
This feels like a book that should never have been published, or at least not read by anyone who didn't already have a thorough knowledge of the subject. It reads like a uni dissertation.
It was set out very well but either things were left unexplained, with random events and names popped in, or things were just wildly illogical. Some of the conclusions Wilkinson made were nonsense, not even fitting with the evidence she used.
One thing that was particularly bad was that Wilkinson often judged outcomes rather than intentions. For example, deciding that Buckingham could not have killed the princes because he got nothing out of it, and lost everything when he rebelled against Richard. Buckingham isn't a psychic? He didn't know his poor decision making skills would lead to nothing? Perhaps I'm missing something or perhaps Wilkinson is privy to information she did not bother to share, but this seemed like terrible practice for a historian to judge decisions based on their outcomes.
The hardback edition is almost £20. There are at least 20 typos, constant repetition, and a lot of under explained, confusing leaps of logic. It almost felt like a money grab.
That said, this part in history is fascinating enough to carry it and it is a very quick read.
It was set out very well but either things were left unexplained, with random events and names popped in, or things were just wildly illogical. Some of the conclusions Wilkinson made were nonsense, not even fitting with the evidence she used.
One thing that was particularly bad was that Wilkinson often judged outcomes rather than intentions. For example, deciding that Buckingham could not have killed the princes because he got nothing out of it, and lost everything when he rebelled against Richard. Buckingham isn't a psychic? He didn't know his poor decision making skills would lead to nothing? Perhaps I'm missing something or perhaps Wilkinson is privy to information she did not bother to share, but this seemed like terrible practice for a historian to judge decisions based on their outcomes.
The hardback edition is almost £20. There are at least 20 typos, constant repetition, and a lot of under explained, confusing leaps of logic. It almost felt like a money grab.
That said, this part in history is fascinating enough to carry it and it is a very quick read.
August 6, 2016
Wilkinson admits that in writing the second part of her biography of Richard III, she became too bogged down with the whole 'princes in the tower' enigma and so chose to pull some of her thoughts together in this book.
Each chapter looks at a different suspect of aspect of the mystery. I've given only three stars not because there was anything particularly wrong with what was written, I think I just expected that Wilkinson had uncovered something new or had a stunning new theory to present! The downside with reading non-fiction books on the Kindle can be that you get to about 75% in and it suddenly ends with the rest of the book being footnotes, bibliography etc.
It is a good and lucid look at the facts and the arguments, so not a bad book, just nothing new and didn't meet the expectations I had formed.
Each chapter looks at a different suspect of aspect of the mystery. I've given only three stars not because there was anything particularly wrong with what was written, I think I just expected that Wilkinson had uncovered something new or had a stunning new theory to present! The downside with reading non-fiction books on the Kindle can be that you get to about 75% in and it suddenly ends with the rest of the book being footnotes, bibliography etc.
It is a good and lucid look at the facts and the arguments, so not a bad book, just nothing new and didn't meet the expectations I had formed.
November 7, 2024
This was fine, mostly just a bit disappointing to get to the end with no firm conclusion; the author thinks the princes didn't die but doesn't go into where they might have gone, other than to say Flanders might be a good place to look for evidence. Wilkinson's belief is that Richard III didn't kill them because nobody did, based it seems on the fact that when placed in chronological order one can see the story develop from 'nobody's seen them' through a lot of uncertainty up to an agreed narrative of What Really Happened. I wasn't entirely convinced by this line of argument, as it'd also fit with uncertainty decreasing as facts became known and a consensus was reached. It also does feel a bit weak to say they weren't murdered but then not say what actually happened to them, as that would probably be harder to explain/easier to check. She thinks Edward V may have died of an illness and then Richard was spirited away somewhere (to become Perkin Warbeck in Flanders?). There's a good point in there that what happened to one did not necessarily happen to the other, though it's indeed a simpler explanation that they both got killed by someone (most likely Uncle Rick).
Wilkinson's 'it was all a rumour' theory puts the origin of the rumour with Margaret Beaufort, scheming to get her son on the throne. And Henry himself supposedly had no idea what had really happened, hence he doesn't produce any remains or announce an answer to the mystery (beyond the guilt of James Tyrell which doesn't seem to have been public knowledge until More wrote about it).
Nice and short but maybe too short since it cuts off just as stuff gets really interesting in terms of new theories!
Wilkinson's 'it was all a rumour' theory puts the origin of the rumour with Margaret Beaufort, scheming to get her son on the throne. And Henry himself supposedly had no idea what had really happened, hence he doesn't produce any remains or announce an answer to the mystery (beyond the guilt of James Tyrell which doesn't seem to have been public knowledge until More wrote about it).
Nice and short but maybe too short since it cuts off just as stuff gets really interesting in terms of new theories!
May 1, 2018
A fairly short but comprehensive book covering the potential suspects in the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Don't expect any conclusions - this is a mystery that is likely never to be solved - but it does take a close look at the evidence for and against the various potential perpetrators, assuming of course the princes were murdered in the first place. Best if you are already familiar with the historical characters involved and the period generally.
April 18, 2019
I have to say, I’m surprised Wilkinson didn’t address the fact that the skeletons of two children were found beneath a staircase in the Tower of London and are generally regarded to have been the two princes. That might have added an interesting facet to her argument, whether she believes the bones to be those of the princes or no.
Other than that, this is a great examination of the suspects in the disappearance of the two princes.
Other than that, this is a great examination of the suspects in the disappearance of the two princes.
February 12, 2022
Of course, it's hard to find new information about things that happened half a millennium ago, and yet this book gives those familiar with the subject nothing new. It also ended rather abruptly. I wasn't expecting to hit some lightbulb moment and think 'aha! Henry did it!'. But ultimately there was very little real substance in this book. It was, however, easy to read, and could be a good starting point for amateurs, if only to find better books about the subject/s.
September 4, 2022
Borrowed from physical library.
'Josephine Wilkinson investigates the prime suspects and presents her own theory ' on the fate of the princes on the tower.
Each suspect or theory is given a chapter and some interesting comments are made, but not always clearly explained who the people are. 6/10
Scoring: 0 bad; 1-3 poor; 4-6 average; 7-9 good; 10 excellent.
'Josephine Wilkinson investigates the prime suspects and presents her own theory ' on the fate of the princes on the tower.
Each suspect or theory is given a chapter and some interesting comments are made, but not always clearly explained who the people are. 6/10
Scoring: 0 bad; 1-3 poor; 4-6 average; 7-9 good; 10 excellent.
August 1, 2018
An interesting read, goes through the facts meticulously. It was quite an easy read if you are familiar with the time period. Although she discounts Richard III of the murder she doesn’t answer what she thinks happened! But she does answer the original question
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 21, 2020
This was an easy read.
October 20, 2024
Hardly the definitive book on the issue but you have to admire the author’s level of research and moxie, which goes as far as living in York (Richard’s favourite city). I wanted to feel what it was like in that tower, the clammy hand of my suspicious uncle guiding me up the staircase away from a light I was never to see again. That’s not the book for this.
March 20, 2020
The mystery surrounding the fate of 12 year old King Edward V and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York is one of Britain’s most popular cold cases and is a story which has fascinated me since I was a boy. Did Richard III murder his nephews? Or was Henry VII responsible on the suggestion of his over-ambitious mother Margaret Beaufort? Or did one or both survive? Josephine Wilkinson presents all the evidence in a selection of individual essays with each one focusing on a particular theory as to what happened to the boys before concluding with her own personal opinion. A truly thought-provoking read especially if you’re interested in this era or the mystery of the boys disappearance.
November 23, 2021
As one of the greatest mysteries of English history, we are unlikely to ever have a definite answer to the question of what happened to the Princes in the Tower. However, it is interesting to read the opinion of a historian who has studied the sources.
While an interesting read, I couldn’t help but poke holes in some of the statements made. For instance; the author theorises that John Howard had no motive to kill Edward V, only Richard, Duke of York. However, mere paragraphs before concluding this, is the statement that the Norfolk lands (that Howard desired and York held) could “be granted anew only by the will of the king.” Edward V would be unlikely to grant his brother’s murderer said brother’s old lands. So, theoretically, the only potential king who could grant Howard the land and titles was Richard III, providing said motive to remove a rival claimant to the throne.
I also found it contradictory to start the chapter on Buckingham with: “… Buckingham, was associated with the murder… as early as 1486.” While ending the chapter with: “ suggestions of his guilt came relatively late in the historical record.”
While I didn’t always reach the conclusions reached by the author, it was interesting to read an account that took in and examined various sources.
Also, as it’s such a short book it probably goes without saying, background knowledge of the subject is required to avoid confusion.
While an interesting read, I couldn’t help but poke holes in some of the statements made. For instance; the author theorises that John Howard had no motive to kill Edward V, only Richard, Duke of York. However, mere paragraphs before concluding this, is the statement that the Norfolk lands (that Howard desired and York held) could “be granted anew only by the will of the king.” Edward V would be unlikely to grant his brother’s murderer said brother’s old lands. So, theoretically, the only potential king who could grant Howard the land and titles was Richard III, providing said motive to remove a rival claimant to the throne.
I also found it contradictory to start the chapter on Buckingham with: “… Buckingham, was associated with the murder… as early as 1486.” While ending the chapter with: “ suggestions of his guilt came relatively late in the historical record.”
While I didn’t always reach the conclusions reached by the author, it was interesting to read an account that took in and examined various sources.
Also, as it’s such a short book it probably goes without saying, background knowledge of the subject is required to avoid confusion.
February 15, 2017
A good book explaining the mystery of the two princes in the tower and how they came to meet their demise
January 19, 2016
As Wilkinson explains in her introduction, she did not set out to solve the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. Rather she set aside her biographical work on Richard III to try and settle how to incorporate their tale as simply as she could. Doing so gave her the basis for this book which is a series of essays, each focused on a different suspect or aspect of their disappearance.
As such, it highlights the difficulty of validating original sources and sets out chronologically when rumours and reports first appeared. From there you are left to follow your own research or make your own decision. A very good introduction to the key players for those new to the topic.
As such, it highlights the difficulty of validating original sources and sets out chronologically when rumours and reports first appeared. From there you are left to follow your own research or make your own decision. A very good introduction to the key players for those new to the topic.
October 4, 2015
Review - An interesting look at the possible culprits for the murder of the Princes in the Tower, rumours and the possibility of one of the Princes surviving. There are also short biographies of the Princes and a comprehensive bibliography. However, what let it down for me was the lack of an index. For historians wanting to look up one particular person or event, this makes it so much harder than it could be.
General Subjects - History / Mystery / Wars of the Roses / Plantagenets
Recommend - Yes
Rating - 17/20
General Subjects - History / Mystery / Wars of the Roses / Plantagenets
Recommend - Yes
Rating - 17/20
December 16, 2013
The book is little more than a list of when the subject was mentioned. There isn't much of an effort to make sense of it, or even to say whether a statement has any value. But at 159 pages of large print, one can at least say that it takes little time to read.
September 8, 2014
Well written analysis of whether Richard had the Princes in the tower killed or not, comes down on the side of not. Interesting speculation, but much as I'd like Richard to be innocent I don't think we'll ever know with anything like certainty.
June 14, 2017
Επί 150 σελίδες αναλύεται το δεδομένο ότι όποιος μίλαγε Αγγλικά το 1483 είχε συμφέρον να δολοφονήσει τους 2 πρίγκηπες και το συμπέρασμα είναι ότι μπορεί και να ήταν ζωντανοί τελικά.
August 18, 2018
I'm really interested In the Yorks, Tudors and what happened to the princes in the tower, I find their story was and intriguing, especially with the emergence of Perkin Warbeck. Wilkinson goes through all the suspects , but I felt as if she didn't believe any of them were guilty, and didnt really leave the reader with any ideas as to who the culprit was. Well written, but felt it was a gathering together of sources.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews