Westminster Bones: The Real Mystery of the Princes in the Tower

by Richard Unwin

Investigations into the mystery of the skeletal remains found at the Tower of London in 1674 and immediately pronounced as being the Princes in the Tower have been hampered by a singular concentration on the drama of a medieval murder story. If the Westminster Bones are the objects of an elaborate hoax, we need to ask who would perpetrate it and why? The power of theatrical drama has prevented the question being considered. Here is a lucid explanation for the “finding” of the bones at the Tower of London in the reign of King Charles the Second that does not rely on theatrical invention, but rather an understanding of the intricacies of human guile.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

80 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 11, 2015

Reviews

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Westminster Bones, a work of non-fiction by Richard Unwin.

Richard Unwin, who has written a number of entertaining novels about Richard III and the Wars of the Roses, gives us an interesting hypothesis in this work of nonfiction. He proposes that the bones found during renovations in the Tower of London in 1674 are not only not those of the so-called Princes in the Tower, but that they were actually part of a hoax, a publicity stunt perpetuated to advance the cause of King Charles II, who was suffering from a severe case of unpopularity at the time.

By the time of the Restoration, Richard III had become a popular villain in theatrical works. Shakespeare may have been the first to use him as such, but he was hardly the last. In fact, by this time, Shakespeare was seen as old-fashioned and numerous contemporary playwrights had turned Richard III into a stock villain who was often made into a useful propaganda tool.

Yes, even in the days before radio, television, and the internet, there was propaganda. In England, especially London, the most commonly used vehicle for getting a message out to the people was the theater. By 1674, when the bones were discovered, Richard III was often used as an allegory for Cromwell in particular, and tyranny and villainy in general, and he showed up in a number of plays, all of which Unwin discusses.

Though often referred to as the Merry Monarch, Charles II had an unpleasant, ruthless side, and a court filled with what was seen as debauchery, so much so that some people were longing for the good old days of the Commonwealth. With "approval ratings" (as we would call them today) falling due to the court corruption and a disastrous foreign policy, what better way to pump the people back up on his side than to create a diversion that would remind everyone about how bad things had been before Charles returned.

The author suggests that the bones were "discovered" to coincide with a new theatrical production featuring Richard III (which would refresh Richard's villainy in the public mind) and to manipulate the discovery to help shift public opinion. In short, it was a publicity stunt meant to remind the good citizens what can happen (tyranny, villainy, Cromwell) when the monarchy is poorly treated.

It's an interesting proposition, and Unwin does a decent job of explaining it. My only complaint is that there are times the author presents his own suppositions as facts, such as "knowing" what really happened to the missing princes, and what Richard III was thinking at the time.

[Pauline Calkin · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 1674, bones were unearthed by workmen engaged in renovations at the Tower of London. They were identified as those of the two sons of Edward IV—the Princes in the Tower—who were said to be murdered by their wicked uncle King Richard III. In 1678, the bones were put in a Christopher Wren designed urn and placed in Westminster Abbey. Many Ricardians are aware of the problems with the identification of these bones as those of the princes—found ten feet below a stone staircase in a busy royal palace. More likely to be of Roman origin. And then the investigation in 1933 that concluded the bones were those of the princes is far from conclusive. Many believe that the identification of the bones in 1674 was due to political problems that Charles II was having at the time. This book goes one step farther—positing that the bones were planted by Charles or his supporters. They were obtained fron a local cemetery or charnel house, put in a coffin and taken to the site of the excavation. Why were they found at 10’? Because that’s the depth that that the workmen had reached. I’m not convinced but the theory is thought provoking. 3.5⭐️

[Éowyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

For his analysis of 'those bones', Unwin does something that no one else seems to have thought of - he starts, so to speak, at the end. That is, with their discovery. You might expect a lot on Richard III, but we actually get rather more on Charles II, but his theory makes absolutely perfect sense.

Of course we all know that a proper scientific analysis could yield huge amounts of information, but it is indeed completely understandable that the Westminster authorities continue to deny such a request to keep their tourist attraction going. Although a daresay having the whole thing blown open as a political manipulation might well attract a few new punters.

[Arynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Westminster Bones" provided a launching point for additional study of a topic that resurfaced after the discovery of Richard III's remains under a British parking lot. Richard Unwin provides a simple look at the mystery that surrounds the legacy of Richard III- as potential murderer of his nephews, the Princes in the Tower, and the suggestion that there is a deeper story than that of popular Shakespearean mythology. This book, though short, was packed with information and resources for further study. Unwin's book satisfies the task of presenting information on an unclosed case- that which holds the history of the Plantagenet king in the air for the time being - and provides a way forward to determine fact from fiction.

[G Prendergast · Rating 1 out of 5]

You'll enjoy this book if you are seven, and you're the type of kid who spends his days torturing small animals.
Apart from that, don't waste your time or money on this juvenile garbage. It's nothing more than a perfect example of nepotism in publishing, since no self-respecting distributor would have any truck with such nonsense unless the author were a son or nephew.

[Molly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant

Absolutely brilliant piece. It took a bit for me to be convinced of what Mr. Unwin was saying but it made so much sense that I became drawn in. Do take the time and read it.

[Debra Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book trying to disprove the bones found the the tower is not the Princes of Edward the IV

[Eileen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Richard III had no reason to kill his nephews and this book gives all the reasons and also why these bones cannot be from that period. Excellent research.

[Mrs Carole Mooney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking

I found this book to be interesting, providing certain facts that I was not aware of. Most surprising claim is that the Crowland Chronjcle is a fake document.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. An interesting look at the circumstances surrounding the 1674 discovery of the bones found in the Tower of London that have generally been assumed for centuries to be those of the "Princes in the Tower," and why the thing might have been a 17th century hoax perpetrated by the far-from-popular (at least at the time) regime of Charles II. Definitely intriguing, and a lot of good points made, but a little too short and sloppy in places.

[Leigh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting, but the book bounced around quite a bit and spent quite a lot of time on the other players in the story of the Princes in the Tower.

[Ameliedanjou · Rating 2 out of 5]

2&1/2 -- good, but a bit repetitive. Guess the author felt the need to pad it out.