What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mythology of the 'Princes in the Tower'
When did the term "Princes in the Tower" come into usage, who invented it, and to whom did it refer? To the general public the term is synonymous with the boy King Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, sons of Edward IV. Is this correct? Were those boys genuinely held against their will in the Tower? Would their mother, Elizabeth Widville, have released her young son Richard from sanctuary with her if she believed she would be putting his life in danger? By working exclusively with his own team of geneticists and exploring the mtDNA haplogroup of the living all-female-line collateral descendant of Edward V and his brother Richard, who has now been traced, John Ashdown-Hill answers these questions and more.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2018
About the author
John Ashdown-Hill
22 books51 followersLouis John Frederick Ashdown-Hill MBE FSA (5 April 1949 – 18 May 2018), commonly known as John Ashdown-Hill, was an independent historian and author of books on late medieval English history with a focus on the House of York and Richard III of England. Ashdown-Hill died 18 May 2018 of motor neurone disease.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 6, 2018
The much-needed spotlight of historical scrutiny is shone into the dark corners of one of our greatest medieval mysteries - the death of the princes in the Tower. This new book is a worthy testament to the long career of the late Dr Ashdown-Hill, and challenges the many myths which surround the disappearance of Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, sons of Edward IV.
I was surprised to learn that even the term ‘Princes in the Tower’, which we use so easily, was never used at the time - or by Shakespeare, and only emerges in the nineteenth century. I also recall trying to decipher the Latin inscription on the urn purporting to contain the remains of the princes in Westminster Abbey. The author helpfully provides a full translation, yet challenges almost every word of it.
There simply wasn't the forensic understanding in 1694 (or in 1933 when the urn was opened for 'modern' examination) to claim undoubted proofs discovered. I also hadn't realised that being buried deep in that place meant some ten feet below ground level - into the region where Roman and earlier bones have been found.
As a staunch 'Ricardian' one might expect the author to implicate Henry VII, who had much to lose by the existence of a legitimate Yorkist challenger to his throne. I know suspicion about Richard III's involvement was useful to Henry and Jasper Tudor when they were trying to raise an invasion force in France, but Henry seems to have remained silent about the matter for nineteen years after his victory at Bosworth.
This thought-provoking book raises many questions - and intriguingly points out that we might one day be able to use improved DNA analysis to answer at least some of them. John Ashdown-Hill was uniquely placed to answer these questions, and will be missed. By working with geneticists and scientists he came tantalisingly close, so it is to be hoped that his book will inspire others to continue his work.
Tony Riches
I was surprised to learn that even the term ‘Princes in the Tower’, which we use so easily, was never used at the time - or by Shakespeare, and only emerges in the nineteenth century. I also recall trying to decipher the Latin inscription on the urn purporting to contain the remains of the princes in Westminster Abbey. The author helpfully provides a full translation, yet challenges almost every word of it.
There simply wasn't the forensic understanding in 1694 (or in 1933 when the urn was opened for 'modern' examination) to claim undoubted proofs discovered. I also hadn't realised that being buried deep in that place meant some ten feet below ground level - into the region where Roman and earlier bones have been found.
As a staunch 'Ricardian' one might expect the author to implicate Henry VII, who had much to lose by the existence of a legitimate Yorkist challenger to his throne. I know suspicion about Richard III's involvement was useful to Henry and Jasper Tudor when they were trying to raise an invasion force in France, but Henry seems to have remained silent about the matter for nineteen years after his victory at Bosworth.
This thought-provoking book raises many questions - and intriguingly points out that we might one day be able to use improved DNA analysis to answer at least some of them. John Ashdown-Hill was uniquely placed to answer these questions, and will be missed. By working with geneticists and scientists he came tantalisingly close, so it is to be hoped that his book will inspire others to continue his work.
Tony Riches
January 17, 2021
I started this book knowing the "present writer" (as he likes/liked to call himself) was a well-known Ricardian. In fact I was so excited for this book that I ordered it from a UK seller before it was available in the US, however it took me a few months to read it. I did not expect him to be so hell bent on bending established facts to his view and to completely ignore or brush off any contemporary source material that doesn't fit his view.
Ashdown-Hill completely dismisses the idea that Richard III's crown was threatened by his nephew(es) simply because their being alive gave cause for even more rebellions to happen in their favor. In his view, the three realm's declaration of the boys as bastards meant the entire country believed them as such and accepted Richard III as king, which contemporary sources show is not a fact. He doesn't mention Elizabeth Widville (he insists it is NOT Woodville) collaborating against Richard III multiple times, he chooses to ignore that as well.
As to the style of writing--it is atrocious! Ashdown-Hill has no concept of chronological order as he skips around enough to make your head spin and wonder what year he's talking about until he actually mention one. He seems almost antagonistic when he dismisses well known historian David Baldwin because he accords the title "Prince" to Edward V and Richard of York. Another fact he refuses to admit is that Bishop Stillington may have given his testimony at the future Richard III's request.
Overall this book was disappointing. It dismisses contemporary sources and attempts to bend history to the Ricardian's favor. The only reason I gave this book 2 stars instead of 1 is because of the DNA chapter. It made the most sense and was actually interesting and based on fact! (I'm actually hesitant to use ! becuase the "present author" uses it so often unnecessarily).
Being raised by a father that has a PhD in Medieval English history and with a degree in history myself, I stand between Richard III as the villain and the possibility of another villain/death by natural causes. I had high hopes this book would shed light, but it didn't. My advise...don't read unless you are a staunch Ricardian!
Ashdown-Hill completely dismisses the idea that Richard III's crown was threatened by his nephew(es) simply because their being alive gave cause for even more rebellions to happen in their favor. In his view, the three realm's declaration of the boys as bastards meant the entire country believed them as such and accepted Richard III as king, which contemporary sources show is not a fact. He doesn't mention Elizabeth Widville (he insists it is NOT Woodville) collaborating against Richard III multiple times, he chooses to ignore that as well.
As to the style of writing--it is atrocious! Ashdown-Hill has no concept of chronological order as he skips around enough to make your head spin and wonder what year he's talking about until he actually mention one. He seems almost antagonistic when he dismisses well known historian David Baldwin because he accords the title "Prince" to Edward V and Richard of York. Another fact he refuses to admit is that Bishop Stillington may have given his testimony at the future Richard III's request.
Overall this book was disappointing. It dismisses contemporary sources and attempts to bend history to the Ricardian's favor. The only reason I gave this book 2 stars instead of 1 is because of the DNA chapter. It made the most sense and was actually interesting and based on fact! (I'm actually hesitant to use ! becuase the "present author" uses it so often unnecessarily).
Being raised by a father that has a PhD in Medieval English history and with a degree in history myself, I stand between Richard III as the villain and the possibility of another villain/death by natural causes. I had high hopes this book would shed light, but it didn't. My advise...don't read unless you are a staunch Ricardian!
November 25, 2018
John Ashdown-Hill attempts to bend the time-space continuum to show Richard III didn't murder his nephews.
A must-read for Ricardians. Everybody else abstain.
A must-read for Ricardians. Everybody else abstain.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 14, 2020
Another accessible, well-written, clear book from John Ashdown-Hill which sets out to myth-bust everything you think you knew about the 'Princes in the Tower' - including why that title is a misnomer. Felt a little sad as John passed away earlier this year (2018) as I looked forward to each contribution he made to this period of history. I will certainly re-read his books with pleasure - thank you John.
October 1, 2020
The mystery surrounding the fate of 12 year old King Edward V and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury, is one of Britain’s most popular cold cases and is a story that 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? Did they both die natural deaths as was common for young members of their family? Or did one or both survive?
John Ashdown-Hill, with the help of geneticists and scientists, conducts his own investigation and attempts to answer many of the questions surrounding the fate of the boys and whether there is enough evidence to conclude that the bones interred in the urn in Westminster Abbey are those of the two brothers.
Unfortunately, while his investigation was thrilling especially with the access the author had to inspect certain artefacts and archives many of us could never dream of ever seeing, the author isn’t able to answer many of questions as to what happened nor whether the bones interred can conclusively be proven to be those of the boys. If anything, the author could only provide his own opinion behind the mystery (namely that Richard III is the least likely culprit) and that there simply isn’t enough evidence to come to a satisfying conclusion.
Sadly, the only way we will ever know if the bones belong to the boys, how they died, when and by what means is for permission to be granted to have the bones re-examined using modern technology and since this doesn’t seem likely, the mystery is likely to remain unsolved.
John Ashdown-Hill, with the help of geneticists and scientists, conducts his own investigation and attempts to answer many of the questions surrounding the fate of the boys and whether there is enough evidence to conclude that the bones interred in the urn in Westminster Abbey are those of the two brothers.
Unfortunately, while his investigation was thrilling especially with the access the author had to inspect certain artefacts and archives many of us could never dream of ever seeing, the author isn’t able to answer many of questions as to what happened nor whether the bones interred can conclusively be proven to be those of the boys. If anything, the author could only provide his own opinion behind the mystery (namely that Richard III is the least likely culprit) and that there simply isn’t enough evidence to come to a satisfying conclusion.
Sadly, the only way we will ever know if the bones belong to the boys, how they died, when and by what means is for permission to be granted to have the bones re-examined using modern technology and since this doesn’t seem likely, the mystery is likely to remain unsolved.
May 19, 2021
For those who have an interest English history during the time of Edward IV, Richard III, and the so-called "Princes in the Tower," - and particular, those who have an early interest in this time period - this is a great book.
Author Ashdown-Hill does a good job of bringing many details and arguments to light that leave the reader wondering how there can be so many people in the world today who are still so convinced that Richard III murdered his nephews, or that they were even murdered at all.
I've read other books on this subject that I did find more enjoyable and that I felt laid out arguments even better, but that said, Ashdown-Hill still beautifully provides many pieces of the puzzle without getting too bogged down in the details, which is why I feel it is a good starter for those expressing an initial interest in this subject.
Author Ashdown-Hill does a good job of bringing many details and arguments to light that leave the reader wondering how there can be so many people in the world today who are still so convinced that Richard III murdered his nephews, or that they were even murdered at all.
I've read other books on this subject that I did find more enjoyable and that I felt laid out arguments even better, but that said, Ashdown-Hill still beautifully provides many pieces of the puzzle without getting too bogged down in the details, which is why I feel it is a good starter for those expressing an initial interest in this subject.
August 26, 2021
It had been a while since I fed my Plantagenet/Richard III addiction, so when I saw this, I borrowed it from another library and have been reading it in quick peeks in between my other reading. The author was an ardent fan of Richard III and proponent of his innocence of the many crimes laid at his feet. While I have read other titles by this author, this one had some newer research I had not encountered before. It was very interesting and, though a bit dry at times, an enjoyable read. Unfortunately, it raised as many questions as it presumed to answer, so no big mysteries have been solved.
Recommended for die-hard Ricardians
Recommended for die-hard Ricardians
February 20, 2021
Interesting
A useful evaluation of available evidence but not totally comprehensive. A bit too much biology and not enough background material.
A useful evaluation of available evidence but not totally comprehensive. A bit too much biology and not enough background material.
January 1, 2024
Really interesting book. Loved the chapter questions and the detailed answers. It also is brought home that these were two young boys whom died and how sad and awful this situation was. Recommend.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews