A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'
A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'
From the Ricardian Register, Winter 1990
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SUICIDE THEORY SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON 500-YEAR-OLD UNSOLVED ROYAL DOUBLE MURDER
Shakespeare's Tale of Smothering in Doubt
WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 3rd, 1990) The Princes in the Tower, immortalized by Shakespeare as the victims of their wicked uncle, Richard III, may not have been murdered at all. Instead, the boys, aged thirteen and ten, may have committed suicide, according to American University history professor Terence R. Murphy.
The hypothesis of a royal double suicide seems utterly outrageous only in the absence of scholarly knowledge about childhood suicide in history, explains Dr. Murphy, an expert in historical thanatology and suicidology and co-author of a recently-released book on suicide in late medieval and early modern England. In that time, childhood and adolescent suicide was much more common than it is today, accounting for 36% of all suicides
Dr. Murphy based the suicide theory on fourteen years of research that incorporates a psychological autopsy on events in the last months of the lives of the Princes, and on evidence concerning the skeletons of two children unearthed at the Tower of London some 200 years after their deaths. In a presentation to the annual meeting of the Richard III Society in October, Dr. Murphy outlined life events which left the boys profoundly depressed, isolated, and powerlessall predisposing factors for a suicidal state.
The PrincesEdward V and his brother Richard, Duke of Yorkwere sent to the Tower of London, then a royal residence, to await young Edward's coronation following the April 1983 [sic] death of their father, Edward IV. In the political struggle for the regency, Edward V's guardians and advisers were dismissed. In June 1483 it was claimed that their father's marriage was invalid and the Princes were, therefore, bastards and ineligible for the throne. Shortly thereafter, their uncle was proclaimed King Richard III and the Princes disappeared from public view. According to Shakespeare's perennially-popular play, Richard III had his nephews smothered and secretly buried in the Tower of London.
In 1674, workmen at the Tower unearthed a wooden box containing the skeletons of two children of approximately the ages of the Princes. According to Dr. Murphy, the circumstances of the burial point strongly to a double suicide: the burial took place in profane ground; the children were buried face-to-face with one child buried face-down; mirror injuries to the chest region suggest a stake may have been driven through both bodies; and the burial placeat the foot of a heavily-traveled staircasewas, along with burial at a crossroads or the foot of a bridge, a customary burial site for suicides in medieval England.
The suicide hypothesis, if accepted, would clear the name of Richard III from the last of a long list of crimes with which he had been associated. Historians writing in the era of Richard's successors, the Tudor dynasty, accused Richard of a series of murders and treacherous acts, most of which have been discredited by modern historians.
Editor's note: The foregoing is a reprint of a release prepared by Laura Blanchard that may be of interest to members for its mention of the suicide theory. The Wall Street Journal has expressed interest in an interview as a result of Laura's efforts.
Re: A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'
I wonder about Edward V's mental state. His whole world had collapsed around him. His whole purpose in life - being King had been taken away abruptly, but much worse must have been the bereavements - not just Edward IV, but also Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. In fact, the latter two must have hit harder, as he had been raised by them. Also, there was all the plotting and uncertainty. It could have made him think the world was a rather ugly place.
However, Mancini does say that he would give everything up, if he could live. If he was seeking 'daily remission of his sins,' that also would suggest that he took his faith seriously, and suicide would have been a mortal sin. I was surprised though that the article said it was common in those days.
As for Richard, he was described as being in good spirits. He would have had less understanding of the situation though, and he had not suffered loss in the same sense. He was raised closely with his mother and sisters, who were still alive. I don't think he would have committed suicide.
On balance, I think suicide is less likely, but maybe it should be discussed more as one of the possibilities. It could also explain some things such as: why only one prince survived, the secrecy the disappearance and Perkin Warbeck's vagueness about what happened to Edwards.
Nico
=^..^=
Re: A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'
Personally, I suspect that the children (one or both of whom could be female for all we know) were Roman or pre-Roman plague victims.
Carol
Re: A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'
I am in agreement with your statement that you suspect the bodies of the two children are probably Roman or pre Roman due to the level they were originally found at. No one could have dug so far down the removing of stone steps and digging ten feet deep in the ground without being noticed.
Christine
Re: A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'
"I am in agreement with your statement that you suspect the bodies of the two children are probably Roman or pre Roman due to the level they were originally found at. No one could have dug so far down the removing of stone steps and digging ten feet deep in the ground without being noticed."
Carol responds:
Exactly. The supposed murderers (named only by More) couldn't even have dug a hole at the foot of the stairs and covered it with "a great heap of stones" (with a lone priest subsequently unburying and reburying them in sacred ground) without being noticed. How could the inhabitants of the Tower not notice a heap of stones that wasn't there yesterday even if they somehow slept through all the noise? As for "digging down the foundations of the stairs," that took a whole team of men and, I imagine, several days of work. It could hardly have been done by two men in the middle of the night--not to mention the difficulty of removing the dirt once the hole was shoulder deep. No one buried bodies ten feet deep even without the foundations of the stairs being in the way. It was too difficult. The sooner someone disproves the whole of More's fable, the better.
Carol
