The Ghosts of the Princes in the Tower

[TheVoorwaarden]

While doing my GCSEs there was not one story that intrigued me more than that relating to the Princes in the tower. I don't know why it stuck with me - probably because innocent children were involved and because I found the 'pretenders to the throne' of Henry VII so interesting. These pretenders (Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel) were to later claim to be these two lost princes, though I remember reading somewhere that one of them could have in fact been who he had claimed to be.

The intrigue doesn't end there are there is apparently some ghosts attached to the two princes...

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Princes-In-the-Tower-Who-Had-the-Most-to-Gain-By-Their-Disappearance



http://www.everything.com/princes-tower/

[Sheila]

Always fascinated me that one.

A good article. Thanks for that. 

The historian David Baldwin put forward a different theory in his book, The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York. He thinks that Edward died of natural causes but Richard lived.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457528/Did-princes-Tower-survive-Essex-bricklayer.html

[JimTheMuso]

During the 70s and 80s Doreen and I (both keen lawn bowlers) belonged to a club at Erith, Kent. One of our members was related to a Yeoman Warder and this resulted in our club regularly being invited to the Tower to bowl in the moat (weird experience) and, afterward,  be guests of the Yeoman Warders in their private club. We were exclusive guests of the head warder and attended the Ceremony of the Keys many times. (American tourists have to book 18 months in advance for that I'm told). In the club several of the warders (at different times) told us of sightings of the ghosts of the princes and others. Anecdotal I know but they were very convincing.

[TheVoorwaarden]

Wow thanks for that lovely insight Jim for it's great to hear from other peoples' first-hand experiences.

The Daily Mail article pertains to a similar one that I had read a few years ago, and it's certainly an interesting proposition.
I have rather discounted Henry Tudor as the person who ordered their 'murder' (or the person who had anything directly to do with their disappearance) because as the article rightly states, he was lenient toward Lambert Simnel.

In fact Lambert was a particular favourite of Henry Tudor, and even though Henry had built up a considerable reputation as a monarch to be reckoned with (victory at the Battle of Bosworth Field, his total control over finances which would eventually make him extremely wealthy and which his son would eventually decimate, control over the unruly lords and barons etc), he allowed Simnel to live. Now this to me doesn't sound like the kind of person who would then have anything to do with the demise of either of these two princes.

On the one hand you could say that the Princes were an even greater threat to Henry's reign, though Lambert Simnel was part of (whether directly or indirectly) a conspiracy to dethrone him. I say directly or indirectly because as with the Lady Jane Grey who never desired the throne herself, part of the reasons why she was executed by Mary was because of the actions of Lady Jane's supporters; namely her father who had used her name as a means by which to remove Queen Mary.

I can't see how Henry could have been involved and I very much doubt that he would have had the Princes executed as a threat, only for him to then allow Simnel to survive and to far outlive his new master (and well into the reign of Henry VIII).

[Sheila]

I think he simply realised that Simnel had been coerced as a youngster into playing the part but the truth is we'll never know the truth. It was a very tangled web and there were a few likely candidates. Very poignant story though, isn't it?

[TheVoorwaarden]

It is Sheila Love it.

I remember my history teacher telling me that Henry VII was his favourite monarch and I think it rubbed off on me, as I think he was one of the best to have ever ruled this country (dare I say even better than Elizabeth as the best Tudor even).

I just read this from Wiki. It details further evidence of the nature and personality of Henry VII when he spared the next intended and designated heir after Ricahrd III, John de la Pole, the 1st Earl of Lincoln:

Henry's second action was to declare himself king retroactively from the day before Bosworth Field. This meant that anyone who had fought for Richard against him would be guilty of treason. Thus, Henry could legally confiscate the lands and property of Richard III while restoring his own. However, he spared Richard's nephew and designated heir, the Earl of Lincoln.

and

After Richard's defeat at the Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485, Lincoln was reconciled with the new king, Henry VII, but soon became impatient for power and tried to achieve it by supporting the claims of the boy pretender, Lambert Simnel. Lincoln's life came to an end at the Battle of Stoke in 1487, at which the rebel army was defeated, and he was killed. In November 1487, he was posthumously attainted.

I say those historians should remove Henry from the list of suspects!!! LOL

[Sheila]

Yet Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York his third cousin, in1483. She was the older sister of the two Princes and he also repealed Titulus Regius, the statute that delcared her father's marriage as invalid. This not only legitimized her but also her brothers, who had a stronger claim to the throne. Would he have done that if he hadn't known they were dead? 

Henry certainly stabilized the country but some historians believe that he was made to look strong by circumstances he had inherited.

[TheVoorwaarden]

What I gathered was that he was far too intelligent a man to worry about anyone threatening his position as King of England. I would say that the state of the country when he inherited was dire, and required an extraordinary person to deal with it - certainly an achievement overlooked by most historians who have concentrated on monarchs who have either a bloody outlook or achieved high esteem on the battlefield.

Henry did neither of these for he didn't have to - using others to do the work for him. In essence and given his tentative situation he 'should' have turned out a leader with a great deal of blood on his hands.

He was ruthless in his own particular way unlike Bloody Mary: foreign policy, national policy, law, control, army (which he cleverly 'rented' from nobility in order to consolidate his weak financial state), set precendents throughout Europe and so forth.

I do believe he would have overcome the challenge had those two princes survived. It just so happened that the princes had disappeared, though it wouldn't have been a concern to him had they lived as he was in a league of his own at the time. Just as he had dealt with the problem of letting both Simnel and the Earl of Lincoln live, he couldn't be touched.

I sound like a fanboi but he really has been underestimated as a monarch - forget Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt or Richard the Lionheart for they were only one hit wonders

I should also add that this is the time that is credited as the death of chivalry (though in my view the death of chivalry occured the moment those cannon were fired at the Battle of Agincourt/Crécy). Henry Tudor was an honourable man and the Simnel/Earl of Lincoln fiasco only serves to reinforce this notion. He wouldn't have stooped so low as to have those princes eliminated. That's my view anyway.

[Sheila]

Oh, I think that he could have been 'touched' and he did take measures against anyone threatening his position. Can't blaim him I suppose and there's no doubt he was a genius when it came to finance but I disagree that the princes wouldn't have been a concern for him as they were major players. He did make the Crown solvent for the firts time in many years and left a huge legacy. People were weary of trouble after 85 years of civil war so more fighting wasn't the road to go down but he was conniving and certainly determined to stay in power.

It's a measure of how astute he was when he had Parliament declare that he had been King on the day before Bosworth, which turned all those who fought against him into traitors so that he was able to claim their estates as forfeit for treason.

He not only married Elizabeth of York but married most of her sisters off to his own supporters. Their cousin Edward, Earl of Warwick was put in the Tower as a 10-year-old as he was a potential claimant to the throne. Henry cut him off from everyone and everything and only let him out to drag him round the streets of London in 1487 in order to disprove Simnel's claims.

Henry didn't take Lambert Simnel seriously and decided that ridicule was the best weapon. That's probably why he installed him the royal kitchen as a turn spit.

The Flemish boy Perkin Warbreck was more dangerous because many of Europe's sovereign heads believed he was Richard, Duke of York. His existence threatened Henry's foreign policy so when he made an attemt to escape from the Tower Henry had him hung along with the innocent Warwick who he had beheaded.

All in the day of a life of monarchs through the ages I suppose!