A different theory about the fate of the 'Princes'

Completely by coincidence, considering we are all discussing the Princes
in the Tower', a friend in the US found the following in a box of old papers.
She used to be a member of the Society. The theory expressed in the
transcript (mine, so errors can probably be laid at my door) below rather relies
on the skeletons in the urn actually being Richard's nephews, but presents an
interesting suggestion concerning the boys' possible fate. If this is all old
news to everyone, I apologise for dragging it up again.
Sandra
=^..^=
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.

Sandra, that is an interesting
alternative, even if you discount the skeletons in the Tower. It has
never really been considered by anyone, but I saw suicide suggested on a
message board once, and wondered if it was plausible in relation to
Edward V. 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 =^..^=

Any theory that attempts to exonerate Richard is always welcome. The problem is that there's no evidence that Richard, ex-Duke of York suffered from depression and only Dr. Argentine's word (via Mancini) that Edward ex-V did. (I wouldn't be surprised if he suffered chiefly from resentment, envy, and anger.) Also, the bit about the bodies being found face to face in a wooden box is completely unconfirmed. The only contemporary testimony states that they were found "as it seemed" in a wooden crate, which is rather iffy and confusing. Possibly, bits of wood were found with the bones, but clearly, the writer (one of the men in charge of the dig) didn't see a complete crate. He doesn't mention the position of the bones at all. (They were, of course, subsequently tossed on a rubbish heap, which could well be the source of the bits of wood.) And they were not found at the foot of the stairs. The author of the article is confusing More's fairy tale with the actual place--ten feet deep in the ground *under the foundations* of some stairs--not the much more easily accessible foot of the stairs ("under a great heap of stones," according to More, but subsequently removed).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

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

Christine wrote :"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