The New Murrey and Blue blog

Here is the Mail article in question, by Dominic Sandbrook. He has now abandoned More as a source and the superficial coincidence of some bones being found within a quarter of a mile of More’s location – never mind that More’s priest is said to have buried the “Princes” below a thirteenth century staircase, let alone disinterring them and burying them somewhere else.

Nevertheless, some persistent denialists’ assertions remain, starting with the “seizure of power” (translation: ELECTION by the Three Estates, as Gairdner said). The “rescue plot”, that Carson suspected of being nefarious in its true aims, is mentioned but taken at face value. Sandbrook insists that the “Princes” were definitely killed, with no evidence whatever, beyond it apparently being in Richard’s interests, although it would have been counterproductive if he hadn’t announced it. Warner‘s Long Live the King has found evidence that Edward II may have survived his deposition by up to thirty years so it is highly specious to suggest that ex-Kings were routinely put to death.

IF the “Princes” were killed, the other suspects are dismissed much too easily. During Richard’s absence from London on progress, Buckingham was Constable of England until he rebelled in September and had plenty of opportunity combined with authority. Henry “Tudor” didn’t have an opportunity in person, being the wrong side of the Channel, but his mother and stepfather did, such that the latter succeded immediately Buckingham as Constable.
As for motive, those who accepted the Three Estates’ verdict, founded on Stillington‘s solid evidence, had almost none as the “Princes” were now recognised as illegitimate. Those who didn’t accept it did have a motive in that reversing Titulus Regius would effectively restore the former Edward V or crown his brother– both “Princes” would need to be physically or officially dead for a non-acceptor to take the throne, particularly by marrying their relegitimated sisters. Same-sex marriage wasn’t legal in 1483-5 and only became so in the last decade, as a departed historian once explained.

It looks very much as though, if the “Princes” are tracked or even found, they will be separate, probably abroad and nowhere near the Tower. Looking at Richard’s legitimate nephews and nieces: the Earl of Warwick and Margaret of Clarence, ten or so de la Poles and Anne St. Leger through whom his own remains were identified, he treated them well, appointing the two Earls to the Council of the North. On the contrary, three of these were executed under the early “Tudors” and at least one more was killed fighting against them.

It is a start, I suppose. I do like Sandbrook’s comparison of Edward IV to Elvis Presley, who died at a similar age.