What do you think?
Rate this book
The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth
The murder of the Princes in the Tower is the most famous cold case in British history. Traditionally considered victims of their ruthless uncle, there are other suspects too often and too easily discounted. There may be no definitive answer, but by delving into the context of their disappearance and the characters of the suspects Matthew Lewis examines the motives and opportunities, afresh as well as asking a crucial but often overlooked question: what if there was no murder? What if Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, survived their uncle’s reign and even that of their brother-in-law Henry VII? There are glimpses of their possible survival and compelling evidence to give weight to those glimpses, which is considered alongside the possibility of their deaths to provide a rounded and complete assessment of the most fascinating mystery in history.
264 pages, Paperback
Published October 22, 2018
268 people are currently reading
895 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Lewis
21 books96 followersMatthew Lewis is the author of histories and historical fiction novels about Richard III and the Wars of the Roses. The medieval period is a particular passion of Matthew’s, a passion he hopes to share through his blog. He is dedicated to teaching and discussing this period, operating two history podcasts and providing bite-sized facts to his Twitter and Facebook following.
Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.
Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
October 30, 2017
I really wanted to give this five stars (it is probably more of a 4.5) as it is a great book and I have discussed this with the author, it just has a few minor problems. I found it became a little confused when he covered Lambert Simnel, it became unclear as to whether the author believes he was the real Earl of Warwick (who was in the Tower at the time), Edward V or an imposter. There was little on the actual man in the Tower, which seemed strange after exploring the Lambert Simnel affair so thoroughly and describing Warwick as the ‘third prince in the tower’. It just seemed like he was an afterthought, with the index only having one page for his plot with Warbeck, trial and execution.
The main problem with this book is that it feels like there is a lot of information thrown at the reader. I don’t agree with some of his theories, but without a good referencing system none of it can be really proven and it just becomes another popular history book, which is unfortunate as it is written like an academic one. It surprises me that The History Press allow no references, as they are so thorough with their other books and it is what I come to expect from them. I would also love to use it for university and look at some of his research, but I am unable to without this.
Overall, it is a great book and it is obvious that Lewis has done a lot of research, it is just a lot of information for one book, fact upon fact and theory upon theory, that it is a bit overwhelming at times. It is still a valuable addition to the works we have on the Princes and gives us a lot to consider regarding what we think we know about them.
I will be writing more on this for The Tudor Society.
The main problem with this book is that it feels like there is a lot of information thrown at the reader. I don’t agree with some of his theories, but without a good referencing system none of it can be really proven and it just becomes another popular history book, which is unfortunate as it is written like an academic one. It surprises me that The History Press allow no references, as they are so thorough with their other books and it is what I come to expect from them. I would also love to use it for university and look at some of his research, but I am unable to without this.
Overall, it is a great book and it is obvious that Lewis has done a lot of research, it is just a lot of information for one book, fact upon fact and theory upon theory, that it is a bit overwhelming at times. It is still a valuable addition to the works we have on the Princes and gives us a lot to consider regarding what we think we know about them.
I will be writing more on this for The Tudor Society.
February 23, 2018
Having read literally hundreds of books about Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, I wasn't sure anything new could be possible, but Matthew sheds new light on some of the well-known facts as well as suggesting some theories that I, at least, hadn't heard before. He sorts everything into chronological order, including reasons why it is illogical to think Richard murdered his nephews and the stories of the various pretenders who plagued Henry Tudor's reign (good!) His points are well-reasoned and logical, but he also mentions the traditional views, so is a fair commentator. He skims over the old 'Who murdered the princes?' question, preferring to examine the many other possibilities regarding their survival under Richard and their ultimate fate. Highly recommended.
October 16, 2017
The Princes in the Tower is possibly the UK’s most enduring historical mystery, certainly up there with the disappearance of Lord Lucan and the Jack the Ripper murders, one which the author probably rightly believes is as hotly debated today through social media as it was in contemporary taverns during the 15th century. Thanks to the remarkable pen of Shakespeare and the many incarnations of his play on stage and silver screen, many people still hold the princes’ uncle Richard III responsible for the murder of the boys shortly after he placed them in the Tower of London. The dastardly, wicked uncle, consumed by ruthless ambition and all-encompassing evil, barely hesitating before murdering a pair of innocent souls. But what if the boys actually survived?
In Matthew Lewis’ latest offering, the author asks us to momentarily forget what we think we know about history’s greatest cold case, and open our minds to the intriguing possibility that we may have been led astray all along, initially as part of a concerted propaganda effort by supporters of the Tudor succession and thereafter by generations of scholars and historians who failed to interpret the source material without their innate bias. The result is a fascinating read that grips from start to finish, readable investigative history that engages the mind. Murder, Mystery and Myth is a most appropriate subheading.
Now, lets get the burning question out of the way – Lewis has not solved the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, nor, to his credit, does he claim to have done so. This book is about putting forward a different idea, to deconstruct the myth surrounding the case and to get the reader to reassess the sources that they may already be familiar with and ask the question – “what if the princes survived?”. Surprising, the evidence, or what is left of it, does not work against such a possibility as perhaps first thought. As he wittily notes, there is ‘no smoking gun, or longbow’, that satisfactorily solves the case.
Lewis opens his book with a fitting quote from the 17th Century French philosopher Pierre Bayle, stating ‘the antiquity and general acceptance of an opinion is not assurance of its truth’, and it is this very idea that the reader must consciously retain as they turn each pages of the book, to focus on interpreting primary and secondary sources without the learned bias each reader often brings to the table.
It is satisfying to note shortly into the book that Lewis states he has no intention of solving the mystery of the Princes’ fate, one which must remain unsolvable due to the lack of evidence which has survived. What the author intends to do in this work is put forward an alternative theory as to the eventual fate of those princes initially locked in the Tower in 1483, one that imagines their survival. His rationale is sound – if we have been able to speculate of the two boys’ death for 500 years, despite a palpable lack of evidence outside innuendo and rumour, why not flip matters on their head and entertain the idea they survived?
Now, one may be tempted to treat any book which seeks to answer the question “were the Princes in the Tower murdered at all?” as yet another tiresome attempt to restore the reputation of Richard III, but Lewis’ book doesn’t fall into the trap of extolling the virtues of ‘good king Richard’ and shouldn’t be written of as such by sceptical readers. As early as page 22, after all, Lewis accepts Richard had the means, motive and opportunity to slay the princes, something often denied by his most ardent supporters. Lewis’ argument, of course, not only absolves Richard of the blame, but also by extension Henry VII, and it is also satisfying to note the author not ascribe to the frankly preposterous belief that Margaret Beaufort was either a religious zealot or had plotted for the crown throughout the life of her only child. This is not a book just for Ricardians.
Lewis works systematically through contemporary sources such as Polydore Vergil, Croyland Chronicle, Dominic Mancini and Bernard Andre, providing historical context to their production and revealing much of the bias behind their writing. He is not wrong to believe that when we focus our mind on accepting for one moment that the princes survived, the sources themselves do not immediately contradict such a notion. We must also try and account for other facts such as how Thomas More, famous for much of the anti-Richard ideas that persist, ceased working on his ‘History of Richard III’ shortly after writing about the Princes in the Tower, with Lewis speculating this may have been because he found holes in the theory they had been killed (More’s worth was later continued by a different writer).
Other facets of the mystery Lewis discusses include the supposed discovery of the princes’ bones in the Tower of London during the 17th century, which the author notes have yet to be satisfactorily subjected to rigorous scientific testing, whilst prudently noting they were conveniently unearthed at a time when Charles II was keen to deflect his detractors by pointing to England’s past tyrants, in this king Richard III who ‘killed’ such innocent children. He also deals at length with the rebellions of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, who he speculates may have been the princes, before ending with another thorough account of the life and times of Doctor John Clement, a member of Thomas More’s household who has been alleged to be one of the princes based on an analysis of a family painting that wouldn’t be out of place in a Dan Brown novel.
The Survival of the Princes is a book that will undoubtedly divide opinion, with some unfairly writing it off before even turning a page. The main issue Lewis faces is that the reader, including myself, will come to the subject with their own bias. Those who are convinced Richard III killed the princes will be looking for holes in his theory, whilst supported of that same king will be more emboldened by the work, all whilst reading the very same words. I can only reiterate that the author, to his commendable credit, does not himself feed into the biases and makes no grand claims either way. It is my personal opinion that Richard III was likely the cause of the princes’ disappearance, and subsequent death. However, I can’t prove this, and this is where Lewis’ book comes into its own – if death of the princes’ cannot be proven, then surely survival must also be considered.
This book is a much needed addition to the subject of the Princes of the Tower, putting forward an additional logical theory without becoming trapped in nonsensical arguments about ‘good king Richard’ or ‘evil Margaret Beaufort’. The best compliment I can pay Matthew Lewis is that whilst I can’t prove that the Princes survived, even after reading his carefully constructed and well-thought out argument, neither can I prove they were killed. And despite what you may read elsewhere, most vociferously online, neither can anyone else. The Survival of the Princes, therefore, is a worthy read, regardless of the side of the fence you sit on in matters of the 15th century. This is a book anyone with an interest in historical mystery must pick up.
Let the discussion commence…
In Matthew Lewis’ latest offering, the author asks us to momentarily forget what we think we know about history’s greatest cold case, and open our minds to the intriguing possibility that we may have been led astray all along, initially as part of a concerted propaganda effort by supporters of the Tudor succession and thereafter by generations of scholars and historians who failed to interpret the source material without their innate bias. The result is a fascinating read that grips from start to finish, readable investigative history that engages the mind. Murder, Mystery and Myth is a most appropriate subheading.
Now, lets get the burning question out of the way – Lewis has not solved the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, nor, to his credit, does he claim to have done so. This book is about putting forward a different idea, to deconstruct the myth surrounding the case and to get the reader to reassess the sources that they may already be familiar with and ask the question – “what if the princes survived?”. Surprising, the evidence, or what is left of it, does not work against such a possibility as perhaps first thought. As he wittily notes, there is ‘no smoking gun, or longbow’, that satisfactorily solves the case.
Lewis opens his book with a fitting quote from the 17th Century French philosopher Pierre Bayle, stating ‘the antiquity and general acceptance of an opinion is not assurance of its truth’, and it is this very idea that the reader must consciously retain as they turn each pages of the book, to focus on interpreting primary and secondary sources without the learned bias each reader often brings to the table.
It is satisfying to note shortly into the book that Lewis states he has no intention of solving the mystery of the Princes’ fate, one which must remain unsolvable due to the lack of evidence which has survived. What the author intends to do in this work is put forward an alternative theory as to the eventual fate of those princes initially locked in the Tower in 1483, one that imagines their survival. His rationale is sound – if we have been able to speculate of the two boys’ death for 500 years, despite a palpable lack of evidence outside innuendo and rumour, why not flip matters on their head and entertain the idea they survived?
Now, one may be tempted to treat any book which seeks to answer the question “were the Princes in the Tower murdered at all?” as yet another tiresome attempt to restore the reputation of Richard III, but Lewis’ book doesn’t fall into the trap of extolling the virtues of ‘good king Richard’ and shouldn’t be written of as such by sceptical readers. As early as page 22, after all, Lewis accepts Richard had the means, motive and opportunity to slay the princes, something often denied by his most ardent supporters. Lewis’ argument, of course, not only absolves Richard of the blame, but also by extension Henry VII, and it is also satisfying to note the author not ascribe to the frankly preposterous belief that Margaret Beaufort was either a religious zealot or had plotted for the crown throughout the life of her only child. This is not a book just for Ricardians.
Lewis works systematically through contemporary sources such as Polydore Vergil, Croyland Chronicle, Dominic Mancini and Bernard Andre, providing historical context to their production and revealing much of the bias behind their writing. He is not wrong to believe that when we focus our mind on accepting for one moment that the princes survived, the sources themselves do not immediately contradict such a notion. We must also try and account for other facts such as how Thomas More, famous for much of the anti-Richard ideas that persist, ceased working on his ‘History of Richard III’ shortly after writing about the Princes in the Tower, with Lewis speculating this may have been because he found holes in the theory they had been killed (More’s worth was later continued by a different writer).
Other facets of the mystery Lewis discusses include the supposed discovery of the princes’ bones in the Tower of London during the 17th century, which the author notes have yet to be satisfactorily subjected to rigorous scientific testing, whilst prudently noting they were conveniently unearthed at a time when Charles II was keen to deflect his detractors by pointing to England’s past tyrants, in this king Richard III who ‘killed’ such innocent children. He also deals at length with the rebellions of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, who he speculates may have been the princes, before ending with another thorough account of the life and times of Doctor John Clement, a member of Thomas More’s household who has been alleged to be one of the princes based on an analysis of a family painting that wouldn’t be out of place in a Dan Brown novel.
The Survival of the Princes is a book that will undoubtedly divide opinion, with some unfairly writing it off before even turning a page. The main issue Lewis faces is that the reader, including myself, will come to the subject with their own bias. Those who are convinced Richard III killed the princes will be looking for holes in his theory, whilst supported of that same king will be more emboldened by the work, all whilst reading the very same words. I can only reiterate that the author, to his commendable credit, does not himself feed into the biases and makes no grand claims either way. It is my personal opinion that Richard III was likely the cause of the princes’ disappearance, and subsequent death. However, I can’t prove this, and this is where Lewis’ book comes into its own – if death of the princes’ cannot be proven, then surely survival must also be considered.
This book is a much needed addition to the subject of the Princes of the Tower, putting forward an additional logical theory without becoming trapped in nonsensical arguments about ‘good king Richard’ or ‘evil Margaret Beaufort’. The best compliment I can pay Matthew Lewis is that whilst I can’t prove that the Princes survived, even after reading his carefully constructed and well-thought out argument, neither can I prove they were killed. And despite what you may read elsewhere, most vociferously online, neither can anyone else. The Survival of the Princes, therefore, is a worthy read, regardless of the side of the fence you sit on in matters of the 15th century. This is a book anyone with an interest in historical mystery must pick up.
Let the discussion commence…
July 20, 2019
It took me five attempts to finish this book, perhaps an omen. I can’t for the life of me work out how it has so many good reviews. I thought maybe I just didn’t get it but I’ve read some more reader reviews and can see I’m not completely alone.
First of all, I don’t know a hell of a lot about the Princes in the Tower and Richard III so it has always interested me. The author did challenge my thought that the bones found in the White Tower were conveniently the boys by showing how convenient for Charles II that they were considering what issues he was having with parliament at the time. So there was that.
However, this book overall is just poorly written. The author can’t decide whether to keep the same language through the quotes, therefore leading to inconsistent writing. I felt the book was more quotes than analysis, and was extremely disappointed in reading a primary source quote every second paragraph. It made the book feel disjointed and reminded me of a first year university paper, where the student is trying desperately to prove how much he’s researched. Adding to that, there’s was far to much word padding; repetitive sentences and rewording going on too.
I’m not sure if the physical copy has more footnotes but I noticed a severe lack of them in the Kindle version. As well as that I felt the bibliography was too short. But I guess when you’re inserting the freaking document itself to try to prove your point (which it rarely did) you don’t need footnotes.
Then we come to the theories themselves... some of them are so far out there and backed up with so little evidence I was left scratching my head wondering how he got there. The princes must have been in Colchester because Francis Lovell ran there and then Henry VII showed interest? Because Lady Eleanor was placed under house arrest for the rest of her days? Sure, anything is possible but without the evidence it is unfair to lead the reader to believe. Passages like ‘this clearly means..’ and ‘therefore it is obvious that...’ just can’t be put in books like this because there simply isn’t enough evidence to say so.
I also have no idea how the hell he came to the conclusion that Edward V was part of the Lambert Simnel rebellion. None of the enormous quotes I read provided any evidence for this. I honestly thought of giving up on the book a sixth time but I’m stubborn so ploughed through. But by this point the book had just gotten ridiculous.
I think it had the potential to be a great book, if it was written by someone who knew how to write history and had an editor that actually did the job.
I don’t recommend this to anyone.
First of all, I don’t know a hell of a lot about the Princes in the Tower and Richard III so it has always interested me. The author did challenge my thought that the bones found in the White Tower were conveniently the boys by showing how convenient for Charles II that they were considering what issues he was having with parliament at the time. So there was that.
However, this book overall is just poorly written. The author can’t decide whether to keep the same language through the quotes, therefore leading to inconsistent writing. I felt the book was more quotes than analysis, and was extremely disappointed in reading a primary source quote every second paragraph. It made the book feel disjointed and reminded me of a first year university paper, where the student is trying desperately to prove how much he’s researched. Adding to that, there’s was far to much word padding; repetitive sentences and rewording going on too.
I’m not sure if the physical copy has more footnotes but I noticed a severe lack of them in the Kindle version. As well as that I felt the bibliography was too short. But I guess when you’re inserting the freaking document itself to try to prove your point (which it rarely did) you don’t need footnotes.
Then we come to the theories themselves... some of them are so far out there and backed up with so little evidence I was left scratching my head wondering how he got there. The princes must have been in Colchester because Francis Lovell ran there and then Henry VII showed interest? Because Lady Eleanor was placed under house arrest for the rest of her days? Sure, anything is possible but without the evidence it is unfair to lead the reader to believe. Passages like ‘this clearly means..’ and ‘therefore it is obvious that...’ just can’t be put in books like this because there simply isn’t enough evidence to say so.
I also have no idea how the hell he came to the conclusion that Edward V was part of the Lambert Simnel rebellion. None of the enormous quotes I read provided any evidence for this. I honestly thought of giving up on the book a sixth time but I’m stubborn so ploughed through. But by this point the book had just gotten ridiculous.
I think it had the potential to be a great book, if it was written by someone who knew how to write history and had an editor that actually did the job.
I don’t recommend this to anyone.
July 14, 2018
I do love a good intrigue. A lot to think about. I've been of the mind for a long time that they were killed in the Tower. Henry VII may have found out that they were dead and that's why he could re-legitimize Elizabeth and her sisters. But still, interesting threads to tug at, full review to come.
December 27, 2018
When I first came upon the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, I was certain Richard III was guilty. Over time I came, at one point or another, to see the truth in nearly every theory except one - that they survived. Until fairly recently, I thought it was an idea that was sensationalist and couldn't possibly have any truth to it. And then, as part of a unit at uni on the Wars of the Roses, I read an article on Tyrell's confession, and his being in Calais in the 1480s, and the mysterious amounts of money that were sent to him for some secret, important purpose. From then on, I started to think that maybe, just maybe they did survive. What Matthew Lewis has done here is present that version of events and an alternative theory of the princes' fate that is usually dismissed out of hand, and he has made a very, very convincing case.
Where this book really stands out is in relation to Warbeck. The idea that the boy supposedly from Tournai really was Richard, duke of York is exceptionally convincing because of the attention Lewis has paid to his story. That European powers were convinced by him is generally overlooked by other authors, dismissed as a sign of Margaret of Burgundy's sheer desperation to throw a punch at Henry Tudor, or the various machinations and political designs of foreign monarchs that prompted them to support Warbeck for their own ends. He makes a very, very good point that if they weren't truly, seriously, really convinced of Warbeck's legitimacy, it would be undermining the very idea and sacrality of monarchy. I felt like a lightbulb went off in my head when Lewis underlined the fact that the de la Pole's didn't push their claim to the throne until after Warbeck had been dealt with, and then they didn't rest - not until Richard de la Pole was killed at the battle of Pavia in 1525, after being recognised as king of England by the king of France. They had a better claim to the throne that Henry VII and yet did nothing about it for years. Was it because they knew there was still one left with a better claim than themselves?? The very possibility is so deliciously tantalising that you can't help but get sucked into it; it's all very Da Vinci Code.
Lewis takes us down several avenues of possibility: that Lambert Simnel was really Edward V who was killed at the battle of Stoke; that Warbeck really was Prince Richard; and perhaps of even more curiosity: that both boys were allowed to live out their days in England as members of the gentry and nobility. It seems incredible, but you can see the evidence laid out before you. That the Princes survived is, really, the only reason why neither Richard III nor Henry VII ever produced any bodies. It explains why Elizabeth of York did not ever condemn Simnel or Warbeck as imposters, it explains why the de la Pole's were late to the game in pushing their claim to the throne. It explains why Tyrell's confession is not found in any other source except Thomas More, and it explains why Elizabeth Woodville had reason to be involved in the 1487 plot.
I think the main thing to take away from this book is that no matter what we have been told, there is more evidence that the princes survived than there is that suggests Richard III had them murdered in the Tower in 1483. If nothing else, this book certainly casts doubt on the 'facts' of the case, and gives the theory of their survival a legitimacy I don't think has been present before. As Lewis states, perhaps all this time we have simply been convinced by the Tudor version of events, and that just like Henry VII attempted to destroy all record of the Titulus Regius, so too was destroyed evidence of the princes' survival. After all, what proof do we have, really, that they were murdered on the orders of their uncle? Only the writings of Thomas More and Shakespeare - and there is, it seems, a lot more to suggest that something else, something far more interesting, occurred back in 1483.
Where this book really stands out is in relation to Warbeck. The idea that the boy supposedly from Tournai really was Richard, duke of York is exceptionally convincing because of the attention Lewis has paid to his story. That European powers were convinced by him is generally overlooked by other authors, dismissed as a sign of Margaret of Burgundy's sheer desperation to throw a punch at Henry Tudor, or the various machinations and political designs of foreign monarchs that prompted them to support Warbeck for their own ends. He makes a very, very good point that if they weren't truly, seriously, really convinced of Warbeck's legitimacy, it would be undermining the very idea and sacrality of monarchy. I felt like a lightbulb went off in my head when Lewis underlined the fact that the de la Pole's didn't push their claim to the throne until after Warbeck had been dealt with, and then they didn't rest - not until Richard de la Pole was killed at the battle of Pavia in 1525, after being recognised as king of England by the king of France. They had a better claim to the throne that Henry VII and yet did nothing about it for years. Was it because they knew there was still one left with a better claim than themselves?? The very possibility is so deliciously tantalising that you can't help but get sucked into it; it's all very Da Vinci Code.
Lewis takes us down several avenues of possibility: that Lambert Simnel was really Edward V who was killed at the battle of Stoke; that Warbeck really was Prince Richard; and perhaps of even more curiosity: that both boys were allowed to live out their days in England as members of the gentry and nobility. It seems incredible, but you can see the evidence laid out before you. That the Princes survived is, really, the only reason why neither Richard III nor Henry VII ever produced any bodies. It explains why Elizabeth of York did not ever condemn Simnel or Warbeck as imposters, it explains why the de la Pole's were late to the game in pushing their claim to the throne. It explains why Tyrell's confession is not found in any other source except Thomas More, and it explains why Elizabeth Woodville had reason to be involved in the 1487 plot.
I think the main thing to take away from this book is that no matter what we have been told, there is more evidence that the princes survived than there is that suggests Richard III had them murdered in the Tower in 1483. If nothing else, this book certainly casts doubt on the 'facts' of the case, and gives the theory of their survival a legitimacy I don't think has been present before. As Lewis states, perhaps all this time we have simply been convinced by the Tudor version of events, and that just like Henry VII attempted to destroy all record of the Titulus Regius, so too was destroyed evidence of the princes' survival. After all, what proof do we have, really, that they were murdered on the orders of their uncle? Only the writings of Thomas More and Shakespeare - and there is, it seems, a lot more to suggest that something else, something far more interesting, occurred back in 1483.
October 27, 2023
I’m a lover of English history and the recent events of discovering Richard 3’s remains have made me want to know more. I wanted to read something about him by a supporter. I’m not 100% convinced Richard 3 killed his nephews, but if I were a detective investigating this case, Richard would be suspect number one. I really wanted to enjoy this book. That said, I’m not sure where to start. There are so many issues with this book! I’m stunned by the fact that this book has an average rating of over 4 stars.
Issue #1: Equal representation of facts. As mentioned in another reviewer’s comments, Lewis seems comfortable bashing the Tudors for using unreliable sources to write their history but allows family legends and unproven theories to prove his side of the argument. He needs to do more vetting of his sources, so that both sides have equal validity.
Issue #1a: Leaps. He made some major assumptions and leaps. He often filled in the blanks of his own research with possibilities and presented them as facts. He would bury a statement about other scenarios being possible, but then would lay it on thick with his suggestions taking up the most space.
Issue #2: Too much info. This book feels like Lewis wanted to include every single tiny bit of info that he found. It’s way too much! His research is amazing, but it kind of feels like he regurgitated everything he knows onto paper.
Issue #3: Editing. This kind of goes to issue #2, but the editing was so bad (nonexistent actually) that it warrants its own bullet. When two words worked, Lewis used twelve. He was trying to show off by using a lot of words and flowery language. His argument would be better served by getting to the point. I got so distracted in one chapter that I started marking up the pages. There are several cases of basically repeated paragraphs. (Kill 90% of the direct passages of the contemporary sources; it’s distracting and can be summarized in modern language).
Issue #4: Lack of objectivity. There were several passages where Lewis made Richard 3 come out completely unscathed and acting as though he were a saint. On the flip side, Henry 7 could do no right and was a monster. I understand that Richard 3 has been dragged through the mud of history but Lewis just wants to deflect and portray Henry 7 as the monster. It doesn’t serve your argument to portray Richard 3 as a saint.
Final thoughts: I’m not sure what purpose is being served here. Who is Lewis trying to convince that the princes were not murdered? With the items mentioned above, no academic or professional historian is going to take these fantastical theories seriously (decoding hidden messages in paintings?! It sounds like a bad sequel to The DaVinci Code). If you want your ideas to be taken seriously then provide serious objective evidence. If not, I recommend Lewis writing fiction, because that is mostly what is written within this book. I wish I could put negative stars because I’m so mad I wasted my time reading this chaotic pile of nonsense.
To the publisher, it doesn’t sound like you employee any editors, so if you need any help, I’m actually looking for a job. I have an English degree and the ability to withstand reading 300+ pages of absurdity.
Issue #1: Equal representation of facts. As mentioned in another reviewer’s comments, Lewis seems comfortable bashing the Tudors for using unreliable sources to write their history but allows family legends and unproven theories to prove his side of the argument. He needs to do more vetting of his sources, so that both sides have equal validity.
Issue #1a: Leaps. He made some major assumptions and leaps. He often filled in the blanks of his own research with possibilities and presented them as facts. He would bury a statement about other scenarios being possible, but then would lay it on thick with his suggestions taking up the most space.
Issue #2: Too much info. This book feels like Lewis wanted to include every single tiny bit of info that he found. It’s way too much! His research is amazing, but it kind of feels like he regurgitated everything he knows onto paper.
Issue #3: Editing. This kind of goes to issue #2, but the editing was so bad (nonexistent actually) that it warrants its own bullet. When two words worked, Lewis used twelve. He was trying to show off by using a lot of words and flowery language. His argument would be better served by getting to the point. I got so distracted in one chapter that I started marking up the pages. There are several cases of basically repeated paragraphs. (Kill 90% of the direct passages of the contemporary sources; it’s distracting and can be summarized in modern language).
Issue #4: Lack of objectivity. There were several passages where Lewis made Richard 3 come out completely unscathed and acting as though he were a saint. On the flip side, Henry 7 could do no right and was a monster. I understand that Richard 3 has been dragged through the mud of history but Lewis just wants to deflect and portray Henry 7 as the monster. It doesn’t serve your argument to portray Richard 3 as a saint.
Final thoughts: I’m not sure what purpose is being served here. Who is Lewis trying to convince that the princes were not murdered? With the items mentioned above, no academic or professional historian is going to take these fantastical theories seriously (decoding hidden messages in paintings?! It sounds like a bad sequel to The DaVinci Code). If you want your ideas to be taken seriously then provide serious objective evidence. If not, I recommend Lewis writing fiction, because that is mostly what is written within this book. I wish I could put negative stars because I’m so mad I wasted my time reading this chaotic pile of nonsense.
To the publisher, it doesn’t sound like you employee any editors, so if you need any help, I’m actually looking for a job. I have an English degree and the ability to withstand reading 300+ pages of absurdity.
February 17, 2020
This was an interesting account of the mystery of the princes in the tower, supposedly murdered by their uncle Richard lll in order to gain the throne of England. This book offered several very plausible theories suggesting one or both boys actually survived. Its a mystery which I find fascinating, and one which I don't think will ever be satisfactorily solved. DNA tests on the bones in a casket in Westminster Abbey would give an immediate answer. I am one of those Richard supporters who think he was innocent but can't decide which alternative ending I agree with.
November 22, 2023
I enjoyed very much the part about Richard of England (aka Perkin Warbeck), that was really detailed and well researched, whereas I didn't like much the first part, too muddled and cherrypicked, or some fantasy theories like the Leslau's one, which in my opinion shouldn't have found its way in an History book.
December 6, 2023
The fate of the Princes in the Tower is one of my favourite historical mystery, so I'm always curious to check out books about it. However, while I read several books about their possible murder, I've never read a book about their possible survival.
I must admit I never had doubts that the poor Princes were murdered or died, so I read this book with curiosity, but not expecting to be really convinced. Indeed, for most of the book, while I found the author's different theories intriguing, I wasn't very convinced; towards the end, however,I changed my mind a little. Yes, I still believe they most likely died, but the author is right in saying that, with the few clues which we have, it is almost equally possible that they survived.
As for his theories, they were mostly interesting, although it was difficult at times to understand if he was presenting different scenarios, or if they would converge in one single theory. By the end, however, things became clearer and I ended up really enjoying his thesis. The most interesting chapters were the one about Lambert Simnel and the one where he talked about Thomas More's painting. This last was maybe a little too fantastic, and would work great in a novel, but I couldn't help but loving it.
All in all, definitely a thought-provoking study and well worth a read, especially if you have never considered the possibility of the Princes' survival before.
I must admit I never had doubts that the poor Princes were murdered or died, so I read this book with curiosity, but not expecting to be really convinced. Indeed, for most of the book, while I found the author's different theories intriguing, I wasn't very convinced; towards the end, however,I changed my mind a little. Yes, I still believe they most likely died, but the author is right in saying that, with the few clues which we have, it is almost equally possible that they survived.
As for his theories, they were mostly interesting, although it was difficult at times to understand if he was presenting different scenarios, or if they would converge in one single theory. By the end, however, things became clearer and I ended up really enjoying his thesis. The most interesting chapters were the one about Lambert Simnel and the one where he talked about Thomas More's painting. This last was maybe a little too fantastic, and would work great in a novel, but I couldn't help but loving it.
All in all, definitely a thought-provoking study and well worth a read, especially if you have never considered the possibility of the Princes' survival before.
January 3, 2025
"It is easy to characterise the Princes in the Tower as one unit, clinging together in fear for their lives as Victorian portraits present them. In fact, they would have been virtual strangers."
Here’s the thing, The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth was such an interesting book and is highly informative, it just had the unfortunate downside of being so very repetitive!
It certainly taught me a lot, and gave me much to think about as it is clear that the author really is knowledgeable on this subject but holy heck did I strongly dislike the repeated explanations of things. Additionally, I felt as though the pacing was off which led to a lot of flopping from one time period to another. It left me feeling a tad bit confused in places!
Potential spoiler here, so I’ll hide it! I just... don’t get it.
Overall, I would give this a 2.75 ★’s rounded up!
February 22, 2018
A fascinating look at the story of the sons of Edward IV, allegedly murdered on the orders of Richard III. Matthew Lewis makes a strong case that they were not murdered at all, but survived to cause problems for Henry VII for many years. No spoilers here -- you will have to check the evidence yourself. Four stars not five, though, because in the last chapter the author gets carried away with some rather wild speculation, which doesn't fit the story he has so carefully presented up to that point. Better if it had been omitted.
November 7, 2020
I'm quitting this one as a DNF at 30%. The author draws a VERY long bow of conjecture to support his theory that the princes may have survived. He finds numerous reasons why the sources used to support the "Richard III killed them" theory are unreliable, yet he doesn't subject his own sources to the same scrutiny, even when they are far more nebulous. In addition to this, his writing is not straight forward, and the arguments far from clear. At times he seems almost to contradict himself, trying to account for all the loose ends in his narrative. Nah, I've got better things to read.
February 11, 2018
too farfetched
September 30, 2022
An interested proposal that Richard III didn't have his two nephews murdered but kept them hidden - even sent them away to be raised in secrecy even as he took the throne from the young Edward V. Admittedly, the chroniclers that wrote the history that is considered tradition and truthful accounts of the last York king and the conquest of the Tudor dynasty were bias - survival of these own writers depended on their appeasing the English crown but Lewis does present other possibilities.
The point that Lewis repeatedly makes - and he does get a bit repetitious - is that there were several situations where the Crown - either Richard III or Henry VI - could have denounced their opponent/enemies as the murderers of the youthful royals. Sadly, Lewis does use a couple of the 'pretenders' - Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck - as either re-directions or the alias of either Edward or Richard of York. That Edward IV's queen, Elizabeth Woodville, would have never allowed her daughter to marry Henry Tudor if he was responsible for her sons' deaths nor if the boys were still alive even if hidden in Scotland or in Europe. In turn, the former Queen would never have turned her own daughters - under sanctuary's protection as she was - if Richard III had murdered her sons.
And then there is Dr. John Clement, who was married into Sir Thomas More's family and Lewis used a version of a now lost Holbein's portrait of the More family to point out so-called subtle hints of the man entering from the right as being Clements and likely Richard of York. But who was the reader in the window behind Clements? Lewis never goes into who that could be.
Personally, in my opinion, the boys likely did die young. Murdered? Possibly but in turn, they were confined to the Tower and could have fallen ill from a variety of causes. Richard would likely not have announced their deaths knowing that he would be accused. Henry Tudor would likely not have legitimized Elizabeth in order to marry her and consolidate the Lancaster and York lines if her brothers - in line for the throne before her - were still alive.
Lewis did come up with a possibility. Certainly one that those fans of Richard III would prefer but really, no one will never really know the answer.
2022-210
The point that Lewis repeatedly makes - and he does get a bit repetitious - is that there were several situations where the Crown - either Richard III or Henry VI - could have denounced their opponent/enemies as the murderers of the youthful royals. Sadly, Lewis does use a couple of the 'pretenders' - Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck - as either re-directions or the alias of either Edward or Richard of York. That Edward IV's queen, Elizabeth Woodville, would have never allowed her daughter to marry Henry Tudor if he was responsible for her sons' deaths nor if the boys were still alive even if hidden in Scotland or in Europe. In turn, the former Queen would never have turned her own daughters - under sanctuary's protection as she was - if Richard III had murdered her sons.
And then there is Dr. John Clement, who was married into Sir Thomas More's family and Lewis used a version of a now lost Holbein's portrait of the More family to point out so-called subtle hints of the man entering from the right as being Clements and likely Richard of York. But who was the reader in the window behind Clements? Lewis never goes into who that could be.
Personally, in my opinion, the boys likely did die young. Murdered? Possibly but in turn, they were confined to the Tower and could have fallen ill from a variety of causes. Richard would likely not have announced their deaths knowing that he would be accused. Henry Tudor would likely not have legitimized Elizabeth in order to marry her and consolidate the Lancaster and York lines if her brothers - in line for the throne before her - were still alive.
Lewis did come up with a possibility. Certainly one that those fans of Richard III would prefer but really, no one will never really know the answer.
2022-210
October 10, 2017
Many books have been written on the murder of the princes in the tower so it was refreshing to read a book with a different approach.
The author discusses all the current theories as to who killed the two princes, and then he devotes the rest of the book to various theories on their survival. A lot of information is given on Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Then he discusses a new theory (at least to me) that the two boys were alive and well throughout the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. They lived their lives under new names, married, had children, all with the knowledge of the Tudor kings. I found it fascinating.
If you are interested in English history, or the Tudors, or most of all Richard III, I highly recommend this book. As a lifelong Ricardian, I am very glad that Matthew Lewis wrote this book and gave us something new.
The author discusses all the current theories as to who killed the two princes, and then he devotes the rest of the book to various theories on their survival. A lot of information is given on Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Then he discusses a new theory (at least to me) that the two boys were alive and well throughout the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. They lived their lives under new names, married, had children, all with the knowledge of the Tudor kings. I found it fascinating.
If you are interested in English history, or the Tudors, or most of all Richard III, I highly recommend this book. As a lifelong Ricardian, I am very glad that Matthew Lewis wrote this book and gave us something new.
September 29, 2024
I immensely enjoyed this piece of speculative history made far more plausible by a lot of very easy to accept premises. If you start with the assumption that the princes (Edward V and Richard Duke of York) the legitimate sons of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, did not die during the reign of their uncle Richard III.
Lewis presents a number of possibilities, some more plausible than others, but backed up with intriguing details and ideas, as well as common sense in the most basic sense.
Without going into great details, the biggest question that he asks and makes the best case for is: if Richard III did kill them, why did Henry VII never make any official remarks on it? The answer? Henry most likely didn’t know OR did know, and for some reason (such as being married to the princes sister) did not have them killed.
If Richard had killed them, then Henry announcing it would make him seem like he was avenging their death, not usurping a crown. If they had died under Richard then he could have announced it to strengthen his legacy as rightful king and not just the man who took over the crown from his nephew. He had a great opportunity to pin it on someone else who was to be seen as the villain, and executed that man for killing his beloved nephews.
Regardless of your stance, this does raise a lot of questions and provides a lot of plausible answers, but Lewis is quick to admit it’s not possible to prove one way or another conclusive truth.
I still want to know why Richard III DNA after his discovery in the car park hasn’t been tested against remains of people who might have been the princes incognito, or th bodies supposedly in the trunk at the bottom of the stairs in the Tower…
Well worth a read, fascinating inquiry into “alternative history” and what if’s.
Lewis presents a number of possibilities, some more plausible than others, but backed up with intriguing details and ideas, as well as common sense in the most basic sense.
Without going into great details, the biggest question that he asks and makes the best case for is: if Richard III did kill them, why did Henry VII never make any official remarks on it? The answer? Henry most likely didn’t know OR did know, and for some reason (such as being married to the princes sister) did not have them killed.
If Richard had killed them, then Henry announcing it would make him seem like he was avenging their death, not usurping a crown. If they had died under Richard then he could have announced it to strengthen his legacy as rightful king and not just the man who took over the crown from his nephew. He had a great opportunity to pin it on someone else who was to be seen as the villain, and executed that man for killing his beloved nephews.
Regardless of your stance, this does raise a lot of questions and provides a lot of plausible answers, but Lewis is quick to admit it’s not possible to prove one way or another conclusive truth.
I still want to know why Richard III DNA after his discovery in the car park hasn’t been tested against remains of people who might have been the princes incognito, or th bodies supposedly in the trunk at the bottom of the stairs in the Tower…
Well worth a read, fascinating inquiry into “alternative history” and what if’s.
April 13, 2024
I started reading this book believing that Richard III definitely killed his nephews and it honestly changed my mind. I do believe that there is a chance that the boys survived and that there's more to the story than we'll ever know.
Even though I think that the author was reaching a little when mentioning some of the theories, there are some which seem plausible and could easily have been the truth. But history is written by the victors, so we will probably never know what actually happened.
Even though I think that the author was reaching a little when mentioning some of the theories, there are some which seem plausible and could easily have been the truth. But history is written by the victors, so we will probably never know what actually happened.
December 31, 2024
I’ve thought for some time that the Princes were not killed in the tower and this book offers various scenarios for that to be the case.
But, as the book goes on, it starts to become a little outrageous and by the time the author is dissecting a painting of Thomas More’s family, he loses me as a reader not because I didn’t follow what he was suggesting, just that it came across as though he’s falling down a rabbit hole, deeper and deeper, until it starts to feel far fetched.
But, as the book goes on, it starts to become a little outrageous and by the time the author is dissecting a painting of Thomas More’s family, he loses me as a reader not because I didn’t follow what he was suggesting, just that it came across as though he’s falling down a rabbit hole, deeper and deeper, until it starts to feel far fetched.
December 1, 2017
Fascinating, and quite persuasive, account of the possible survival of the infamous 'Princes in the Tower'. Well researched and argued and doesn't give too much credence to some of the more outlandish theories about the princes (although Edward V surviving and becoming the grandfather of Guildford Dudley was a bit far fetched). Highly enjoyable and informative read.
October 26, 2022
Despite the abundance of theories presented here about the potential survival of the Princes in the Tower, none of them are convincing enough for me. I also thought the book was not particularly well written.
June 22, 2021
Super informative and I could tell the author put a lot of thought and research into it.
February 7, 2023
If you think you already know everything there is to know about this medieval mystery, this book will certainly prove you wrong. The author makes a compelling case for the survival of one, or both, of the princes and provided me with plenty of food for thought. I felt it got a little bogged down in unnecessary detail at times, but it still remained an enjoyable and interesting read.
April 12, 2022
interesting read in which I learnt a lot about the period that I didn't know
July 17, 2023
I have always been fascinated in the Princes in the tower and especially Richard III this book was thought provoking and a read I throughly I enjoyed
February 8, 2019
One of the greatest mysteries of all time is what happened to the young princes, the sons of Edward IV, who were held in the Tower of London. Many people believed that they were killed. There are some who believe that Richard III had them murdered and there are some who say that Henry VII ordered the deed to be done. But what if they were never killed? What if they survived? That is the premise of Matthew Lewis’s book “The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth”.
I have always been one of those people who believed that the princes were indeed murdered and that the one who ordered their murders was Richard III. I have read the “sources” and I came to my own conclusions. A few months ago, I attended the Tudor Summit (for those of you who do not know what this, look it up it is a fantastic two- day summit with fellow Tudor nerds) and one of the speakers was Matthew Lewis. Normally I don’t pay attention to the Ricardian side of this debate, but his talk made me interested, so I decided to read his book.
I am really glad I decided to read this book. It gave me something new to think about when it comes to this mystery and it did it in such a constructive way that made sense. Lewis starts his book by exploring the facts and the different sources that made the case that the princes were murdered, and then he looks at why these sources have been misinterpreted and don’t tell the whole story. For example, the fact that More said that Edward IV died in his fifties when in fact he died when he was in his forties, which is a big age gap. Lewis asks rather obvious questions about the anti- Ricardian argument like why did Elizabeth Woodville turn over to her sons if she believed that Richard III was truly evil. It was by going through these sources and these obvious questions that started to create a lot of doubt in my mind whether or not the side I was on in this debate was accurate.
Lewis then dives into the lives of those we call the “pretenders”, Lambert Simnel and image015Perkin Warbeck. These were the most famous pretenders and the ones who challenged Henry VII’s right to the throne. If they were really the princes in the tower, why were they defeated? Why were they considered pretenders? Lewis explores other people who could possibly be the princes, including a theory by amateur art historian Jack Leslau on “The Family of Sir Thomas More” by Hans Holbein the Younger.
The theory that Matthew Lewis presents in this book is very unique. In order to understand what he is trying to do, you have to be open to a different perspective on this quagmire of a topic: the princes in the tower. There are certain books that come along and totally shake what you believe in, but you should not be afraid to read these kinds of books. I did not know what to expect when I started this book, but Lewis presented an argument that made sense and made me question everything I thought I knew about this mystery. Now I want to reread the sources and try to understand them better. I would recommend this book for anyone who thinks Richard III is innocent, guilty, or you are unsure of your position in this debate. “The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth” by Matthew Lewis breathes new life into this debate and begs the question: what if the princes in the tower lived?
I have always been one of those people who believed that the princes were indeed murdered and that the one who ordered their murders was Richard III. I have read the “sources” and I came to my own conclusions. A few months ago, I attended the Tudor Summit (for those of you who do not know what this, look it up it is a fantastic two- day summit with fellow Tudor nerds) and one of the speakers was Matthew Lewis. Normally I don’t pay attention to the Ricardian side of this debate, but his talk made me interested, so I decided to read his book.
I am really glad I decided to read this book. It gave me something new to think about when it comes to this mystery and it did it in such a constructive way that made sense. Lewis starts his book by exploring the facts and the different sources that made the case that the princes were murdered, and then he looks at why these sources have been misinterpreted and don’t tell the whole story. For example, the fact that More said that Edward IV died in his fifties when in fact he died when he was in his forties, which is a big age gap. Lewis asks rather obvious questions about the anti- Ricardian argument like why did Elizabeth Woodville turn over to her sons if she believed that Richard III was truly evil. It was by going through these sources and these obvious questions that started to create a lot of doubt in my mind whether or not the side I was on in this debate was accurate.
Lewis then dives into the lives of those we call the “pretenders”, Lambert Simnel and image015Perkin Warbeck. These were the most famous pretenders and the ones who challenged Henry VII’s right to the throne. If they were really the princes in the tower, why were they defeated? Why were they considered pretenders? Lewis explores other people who could possibly be the princes, including a theory by amateur art historian Jack Leslau on “The Family of Sir Thomas More” by Hans Holbein the Younger.
The theory that Matthew Lewis presents in this book is very unique. In order to understand what he is trying to do, you have to be open to a different perspective on this quagmire of a topic: the princes in the tower. There are certain books that come along and totally shake what you believe in, but you should not be afraid to read these kinds of books. I did not know what to expect when I started this book, but Lewis presented an argument that made sense and made me question everything I thought I knew about this mystery. Now I want to reread the sources and try to understand them better. I would recommend this book for anyone who thinks Richard III is innocent, guilty, or you are unsure of your position in this debate. “The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth” by Matthew Lewis breathes new life into this debate and begs the question: what if the princes in the tower lived?
January 4, 2018
‘The Survival of the Princes in the Tower’ offers a rational investigation of the contemporary and near-contemporary sources to discover the real story of what happened to the sons of Edward IV, reportedly last seen alive in the Tower of London in the summer or autumn of 1483.
For more than 400 years 'history' has blithely accepted the Tudor version of this story - that the boys were murdered and that a monstrous villain, King Richard III, was behind the crime - without questioning how that version came about. That is the version of events that has most often been repeated in mainstream, general history books, yet it evolved only slowly over decades, finally coming fully into flower in a powerful (and powerfully influential) piece of dramatic fiction - Shakespeare's 'The Tragedy of Richard III' - more than a century after the murder was supposed to have taken place.
But go back those hundred years before the play was first performed (in an England ruled by the granddaughter of the man who usurped the throne from the said King Richard III) and you find a very different story. Or, perhaps, individual, scattered pieces of very different stories. Snippets, rumours, asides, suppositions, incomplete notes, biased reports, destroyed records – all have a part to play in the history of this ‘history’. And, yet, many still believe the ‘truth’ of Shakespeare’s story without considering those individual elements that were drawn together into its (suspiciously coherent) whole in the 1590s.
In ‘The Survival of the Princes in the Tower’ Matthew Lewis draws together the disparate, often fragmentary and sometimes even contradictory records from the 1480s onwards that may shed light on the fates of the two sons of King Edward IV. (I say ‘fates’ because, although the boys are usually lumped together as ‘the Princes’, it becomes clear, once you consider the earliest sources, that their lives may well have had widely differing outcomes – much as the boys had very different upbringings.)
I have to admit that when I first saw the cover of the book, my heart sank. There are, to be fair, very few contemporary fifteenth-century depictions of the two boys, Edward and Richard, but I know I’m not the only person wearied by the continual use of a nineteenth-century painting of two blond-tressed angelic little boys cowering in fear at the prospect of being murdered by their evil uncle. However, it is one of the best-known depictions and when my hardback copy of the book arrived, I was struck by the way that yellow hair is echoed in the yellow lettering of the title on its black background – and the way it makes the pivotal word ‘Survival’ stand out.
For that is what careful consideration of all the available early sources – and investigation of their manipulation in subsequent years – leads to: the conclusion that both boys survived – beyond that turbulent summer of 1483, beyond the failed rebellion in October of that year, beyond the dramatic events of August 1485. In my mind, and it seems that of Matthew Lewis, it is only after the death in battle of their Uncle Richard and the accession to the throne of the victor Henry Tudor that the boys’ survival is in question. Who was more likely to need them permanently out of the way? A King whose Parliament had declared the boys illegitimate and therefore possessing no claim to the throne – or a King whose own claim to the throne was so tenuous he had to shore it up through marriage to a daughter of Edward IV – whom he had to re-legitimize through an Act of Parliament, which then gave her two brothers (if still alive) a better claim than his own?
As Lewis states throughout, it’s what is not said or done that is often most telling in this tale. He dubs it the ‘black hole effect’ – while the boys themselves may not be obvious to our sight after 1483, perhaps their gravitational pull on the actions or inactions of other people may indicate their whereabouts or give rise to suspicions of their presence. Why did Henry Tudor not trumpet the guilt of his predecessor if it was so well known that King Richard had had the boys murdered? Why did Elizabeth Woodville never accuse her brother-in-law of her sons’ murder, even after his death when she was safe from any possible repercussions? Why didn’t her daughter, Elizabeth of York, deplore it either, even after her marriage to Henry? (The younger Elizabeth famously possessed a book that had belonged to Richard, inscribed with both her name and his motto – perhaps not something that would have been treasured by the sister of victims supposed to have been murdered at his hands.)
Yet Lewis announces early on that his aim is not to concentrate on King Richard’s part in the story (or to clear him of any blame for a crime), but rather to focus on whether there is any evidence of any such crime occurring at all. And that is perhaps where this book particularly succeeds: it goes beyond the usual (and seemingly endless) ‘did he or didn’t he?’ debates that still swirl around Richard III to interrogate the sources of information that exist beyond 1485. What have the contemporary sources to say about the so-called ‘Lambert Simnel’ affair and the identity of the young man at its centre? (Surprisingly little, and what there is allows that the ‘pretender’ is as likely to have been called John as Lambert, and is more likely to have been a son of Edward IV called Edward than to have claimed to be the (imprisoned) Earl of Warwick.) What do the sources say about the so-called ‘Perkin Warbeck’ affair? If Henry Tudor knew that the boys had died in the Tower and had proof, even only credible oral evidence, why did these rebellions rattle him so much? Why did elaborate, frankly unbelievable stories have to be created to deflect from what both young men claimed?
Lewis also explores theories of what may have happened to the boys based on art historical and other non-textual research – involving the work of Hans Holbein and the genealogies of several prominent Tudor-era families. While interesting, these represent for me something of a conceptual step too far and I prefer to focus on the discrepancies of the immediate post-Bosworth ‘history’ – of which there are many – certainly plenty to justify at the very least a healthy scepticism in relation to the ‘official’ Tudor version.
Perhaps we will never know exactly what happened to the ‘Princes in the Tower’. Or perhaps Philippa Langley’s ongoing ‘Missing Princes Project’ will bear fruit and discover so-far unknown or unrecognized evidence of their fates, in England or abroad. But surely, meanwhile, it’s time to go beyond blind acceptance of an establishment-sponsored version of events that, when closely scrutinized, really doesn’t hang together. What evidence is there of any murder? What evidence is there of the boys’ survival? Matthew Lewis’s book finds far more of the latter than of the former.
Bringing together, apparently for the first time in a single book, so many of the available sources of information on the possible outcomes for King Edward’s sons, Lewis may not have solved the centuries-old mystery, but he has provided a valuable resource for anyone fascinated by this complex and intriguing period of medieval/early modern English history. And hopefully it will open a few people’s eyes to an alternative interpretation from that to which Henry Tudor and his adherents would like to direct us.
For more than 400 years 'history' has blithely accepted the Tudor version of this story - that the boys were murdered and that a monstrous villain, King Richard III, was behind the crime - without questioning how that version came about. That is the version of events that has most often been repeated in mainstream, general history books, yet it evolved only slowly over decades, finally coming fully into flower in a powerful (and powerfully influential) piece of dramatic fiction - Shakespeare's 'The Tragedy of Richard III' - more than a century after the murder was supposed to have taken place.
But go back those hundred years before the play was first performed (in an England ruled by the granddaughter of the man who usurped the throne from the said King Richard III) and you find a very different story. Or, perhaps, individual, scattered pieces of very different stories. Snippets, rumours, asides, suppositions, incomplete notes, biased reports, destroyed records – all have a part to play in the history of this ‘history’. And, yet, many still believe the ‘truth’ of Shakespeare’s story without considering those individual elements that were drawn together into its (suspiciously coherent) whole in the 1590s.
In ‘The Survival of the Princes in the Tower’ Matthew Lewis draws together the disparate, often fragmentary and sometimes even contradictory records from the 1480s onwards that may shed light on the fates of the two sons of King Edward IV. (I say ‘fates’ because, although the boys are usually lumped together as ‘the Princes’, it becomes clear, once you consider the earliest sources, that their lives may well have had widely differing outcomes – much as the boys had very different upbringings.)
I have to admit that when I first saw the cover of the book, my heart sank. There are, to be fair, very few contemporary fifteenth-century depictions of the two boys, Edward and Richard, but I know I’m not the only person wearied by the continual use of a nineteenth-century painting of two blond-tressed angelic little boys cowering in fear at the prospect of being murdered by their evil uncle. However, it is one of the best-known depictions and when my hardback copy of the book arrived, I was struck by the way that yellow hair is echoed in the yellow lettering of the title on its black background – and the way it makes the pivotal word ‘Survival’ stand out.
For that is what careful consideration of all the available early sources – and investigation of their manipulation in subsequent years – leads to: the conclusion that both boys survived – beyond that turbulent summer of 1483, beyond the failed rebellion in October of that year, beyond the dramatic events of August 1485. In my mind, and it seems that of Matthew Lewis, it is only after the death in battle of their Uncle Richard and the accession to the throne of the victor Henry Tudor that the boys’ survival is in question. Who was more likely to need them permanently out of the way? A King whose Parliament had declared the boys illegitimate and therefore possessing no claim to the throne – or a King whose own claim to the throne was so tenuous he had to shore it up through marriage to a daughter of Edward IV – whom he had to re-legitimize through an Act of Parliament, which then gave her two brothers (if still alive) a better claim than his own?
As Lewis states throughout, it’s what is not said or done that is often most telling in this tale. He dubs it the ‘black hole effect’ – while the boys themselves may not be obvious to our sight after 1483, perhaps their gravitational pull on the actions or inactions of other people may indicate their whereabouts or give rise to suspicions of their presence. Why did Henry Tudor not trumpet the guilt of his predecessor if it was so well known that King Richard had had the boys murdered? Why did Elizabeth Woodville never accuse her brother-in-law of her sons’ murder, even after his death when she was safe from any possible repercussions? Why didn’t her daughter, Elizabeth of York, deplore it either, even after her marriage to Henry? (The younger Elizabeth famously possessed a book that had belonged to Richard, inscribed with both her name and his motto – perhaps not something that would have been treasured by the sister of victims supposed to have been murdered at his hands.)
Yet Lewis announces early on that his aim is not to concentrate on King Richard’s part in the story (or to clear him of any blame for a crime), but rather to focus on whether there is any evidence of any such crime occurring at all. And that is perhaps where this book particularly succeeds: it goes beyond the usual (and seemingly endless) ‘did he or didn’t he?’ debates that still swirl around Richard III to interrogate the sources of information that exist beyond 1485. What have the contemporary sources to say about the so-called ‘Lambert Simnel’ affair and the identity of the young man at its centre? (Surprisingly little, and what there is allows that the ‘pretender’ is as likely to have been called John as Lambert, and is more likely to have been a son of Edward IV called Edward than to have claimed to be the (imprisoned) Earl of Warwick.) What do the sources say about the so-called ‘Perkin Warbeck’ affair? If Henry Tudor knew that the boys had died in the Tower and had proof, even only credible oral evidence, why did these rebellions rattle him so much? Why did elaborate, frankly unbelievable stories have to be created to deflect from what both young men claimed?
Lewis also explores theories of what may have happened to the boys based on art historical and other non-textual research – involving the work of Hans Holbein and the genealogies of several prominent Tudor-era families. While interesting, these represent for me something of a conceptual step too far and I prefer to focus on the discrepancies of the immediate post-Bosworth ‘history’ – of which there are many – certainly plenty to justify at the very least a healthy scepticism in relation to the ‘official’ Tudor version.
Perhaps we will never know exactly what happened to the ‘Princes in the Tower’. Or perhaps Philippa Langley’s ongoing ‘Missing Princes Project’ will bear fruit and discover so-far unknown or unrecognized evidence of their fates, in England or abroad. But surely, meanwhile, it’s time to go beyond blind acceptance of an establishment-sponsored version of events that, when closely scrutinized, really doesn’t hang together. What evidence is there of any murder? What evidence is there of the boys’ survival? Matthew Lewis’s book finds far more of the latter than of the former.
Bringing together, apparently for the first time in a single book, so many of the available sources of information on the possible outcomes for King Edward’s sons, Lewis may not have solved the centuries-old mystery, but he has provided a valuable resource for anyone fascinated by this complex and intriguing period of medieval/early modern English history. And hopefully it will open a few people’s eyes to an alternative interpretation from that to which Henry Tudor and his adherents would like to direct us.
January 12, 2018
The Survival of the Princes in the Tower is an intriguing book that posits a different view of the question: who murdered the Princes in the Tower? Rather than listing the various reasons Richard III, Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham, or others might be guilty, Mr. Lewis contends that either one or probably both survived the reign of Richard III. He lists the possibilities of what might have happened to them, relying on what he calls the 'black hole effect'. The absence of real information creates a black hole, but the actions of the people around them make a 'gravitational pull' of data showing their possible presence still in those people's lives.
Edward V may have survived (and he shows how this might be) to either die at Stokes Field or maybe survive to live under an assumed name. Richard of York might have initiated his rebellion to be captured and then executed as Perkin Warbeck or he might have also survived under an assumed identity.
There's an interesting theory espoused by Leslau who takes some of Holbein's portraits and deconstructs the clues hidden within to show how both princes survived well into the reign of Henry VIII.
This is a well-written and logical supposition that explains what has always been my biggest stumbling block with the murder of the princes: why would Elizabeth Woodville allow her daughters back to court if Richard III murdered her sons? There's no real proof here, but I found it a very interesting read.
Edward V may have survived (and he shows how this might be) to either die at Stokes Field or maybe survive to live under an assumed name. Richard of York might have initiated his rebellion to be captured and then executed as Perkin Warbeck or he might have also survived under an assumed identity.
There's an interesting theory espoused by Leslau who takes some of Holbein's portraits and deconstructs the clues hidden within to show how both princes survived well into the reign of Henry VIII.
This is a well-written and logical supposition that explains what has always been my biggest stumbling block with the murder of the princes: why would Elizabeth Woodville allow her daughters back to court if Richard III murdered her sons? There's no real proof here, but I found it a very interesting read.
August 15, 2024
I re-read this book’s new and revised edition published in December 2023, thinking it would discuss the recent discoveries of the Missing Princes Project. It doesn’t so my earlier review doesn’t change. As I previously commented, the author examines in an even-handed manner the numerous theories on the fate of the Princes in the Tower, the sons of King Edward IV—were they murdered? who murdered them? Did they survive and were one or both of them the pretenders who tried to take the crown from Henry VII in the Lambert Simnell or Perkin Warbeck rebellions? The last half of the book is a detailed account of the Perkin Warbeck matter and how European politics of the day influenced whether a monarch recognized that the man who claimed to be Richard of York was actually Edward IV’s son. The author does seem too enamored of the Leslau theory that the John Clement depicted in the Holbein portrait of the Thomas More family is really Richard, Duke of York. The author even argues that the painting suggests that Edward Guildford was really Edward V. And apparently this secret was known to Henry VII and VIII. (Yeah, these same guys were busy getting rid of the Plantagenet males, i.e., the de la Poles, but they left Dick and Ed free to roam? I don’t buy it. The logic is tortuous, and it’s a bridge too far for me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 15, 2023
Couldn’t get past the spelling howlers.
Sure used instead of shore and guild for gold within the first few pages, errors which make me question how accurate anything in the book could be. Put it down at this point.
Sure used instead of shore and guild for gold within the first few pages, errors which make me question how accurate anything in the book could be. Put it down at this point.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews