# 03 — Primary sources for the traditional view: the princes died in 1483

Research note. Scope: every source usually cited for the claim that Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were dead by the end of 1483 (or by the time of the October rebellion), with the wording in the original language, a translation, the edition and page or URL used, and an assessment of what each text can actually bear.

## How to read this note

Classification tags (a source may carry several):

- **(K)** the writer claims *knowledge* that the boys were dead (and, sometimes, how).
- **(R)** the writer reports a *rumour, suspicion or belief* current at the time.
- **(I)** the statement is the writer's own *inference* (or the inference is the reader's, not the writer's).
- **(P)** the writer or the text is *partisan* — hostile to Richard III, or written for an interested party; the party is named each time.

Verification tags:

- **Verified** — I read the passage myself in the cited edition (digitised copy; OCR normalised by me: long-s rendered as s, obvious OCR errors silently corrected, spelling of the edition otherwise kept).
- **Unverified** — quoted from a secondary source, from a search snippet, or from memory; not to be quoted as if checked.

Working copies of the raw downloads are not included in this folder; the archive.org identifiers given allow anyone to re-fetch the full text (`https://archive.org/download/<id>/<id>_djvu.txt`).

General caution that applies throughout: **not one of the sources below was written by anyone who says he saw the princes dead, saw their bodies, or heard a confession himself.** The earliest texts (Mancini, Crowland, Cely, Stallworth, Weinreich) report absence, fear, suspicion and rumour. Assertions of fact begin with foreign political oratory (Rochefort, January 1484) and with texts written after Bosworth under the new dynasty (Rous, the Tudor attainder, Vergil, More).

---

## 1. Dominic Mancini, *De occupatione regni Anglie per Riccardum tercium* (finished 1 December 1483)

**Text and editions.** Single manuscript, Lille, Bibliothèque municipale (MS 501 — shelfmark Unverified). Edited with translation by C. A. J. Armstrong, *The Usurpation of Richard the Third* (Oxford 1936; 2nd ed. 1969; reprinted Gloucester 1984). New translation: Annette Carson, *Domenico Mancini: De occupatione regni Anglie / The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III* (2021; exact title Unverified). **I could not access either edition** (Armstrong 1936 on archive.org is lending-restricted, returned 401; Carson 2021 is in copyright). Everything below is therefore **Unverified as to the Latin wording and page numbers**; the English sentences are Armstrong's translation as widely reproduced in secondary literature (I saw them in Wikipedia and Richard III Society material, not in Armstrong's book).

**Date and circumstances.** Colophon dated at Beaugency, 1 December 1483; addressed to Angelo Cato, archbishop of Vienne, physician and counsellor at the French court. Mancini was in London until about mid-July 1483 (he says he left shortly after the coronation of 6 July); he did not know English well, relied on informants (he names the physician John Argentine), and wrote up his report in France in the autumn of 1483. He therefore cannot know anything that happened after mid-July, and he says so.

**Key passages (Armstrong's English; Latin from memory, Unverified — check Armstrong 1969, c. pp. 92–93):**

(a) After Hastings' death (13 June 1483): "But after Hastings was removed, all the attendants who had waited on the king were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether."
(Latin, Unverified: *"Sed postquam Hastingus sublatus est, omnes qui regi ministraverant ab eius accessu prohibiti sunt; ipse et frater in interiores Turris aedes recepti, in dies rarius per cancellos et fenestras conspici coepti, donec omnino desierunt apparere."*)

(b) Argentine: "The physician Argentine, the last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."
(Latin, Unverified: *"… adolescentulum regem tanquam victimam sacrificio paratam, quotidiana confessione et poenitentia peccatorum remissionem quaerere, quod sibi mortem imminere crederet."*)

(c) The conclusion: "I have seen many men burst forth into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him after his removal from men's sight; and already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether, however, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered."
(Latin, Unverified: *"… iam suspicio erat eum sublatum. An tamen sublatus sit, et quo genere mortis, nondum compertum habeo."*)

**Translation dispute (Unverified, but load-bearing).** Armstrong renders *sublatus* as "done away with"; Carson (2021) argues the verb *tollere* here means "removed / taken away" and that Mancini says only that the boy had been removed from sight and that people suspected he had been *removed*, not necessarily killed. The Latin must be checked before either rendering is relied on.

**What Mancini could know.** London gossip up to c. mid-July 1483, plus what Argentine told him (Argentine attended Edward V in the Tower; the date of his last access is not stated). Nothing about the boys after the coronation, and nothing at all from an eyewitness of a death.

**Classification.** **(R)** — a suspicion (*suspicio*) current in London, explicitly *not* knowledge; the writer says he does not know whether the king is dead or how. **(P)** mild: written for the French court (Cato), which was hostile to Richard's regime, and framed as a story of usurpation; but Mancini is not a Tudor writer (he wrote before there was a Tudor claim) and is unusually careful to mark hearsay. Not (K).

**What it can bear.** That Edward V was seen less and less after 13 June and had vanished from sight by the time Mancini left (mid-July); that a rumour of his death existed in London by then; that his physician thought the boy expected to die. It cannot bear a death in 1483 as fact, and it says nothing separately about Richard of York.

---

## 2. The Crowland (Croyland) continuation (written April 1486)

**Text and editions.** Latin: William Fulman, *Rerum Anglicarum Scriptorum Veterum* tom. I (Oxford 1684), "Historiae Croylandensis Continuatio", pp. 567–568 for the 1483 passages; colophon p. 578. archive.org id `bub_gb_iAA-oERWO5AC`. **Verified.** English: H. T. Riley, *Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations* (Bohn, London 1854), pp. 490–491, 496–497; archive.org id `ingulphschronic00ingu`. **Verified.** Modern edition: N. Pronay and J. Cox, *The Crowland Chronicle Continuations 1459–1486* (London 1986) — not accessed; their rendering of the key sentence, "a rumour arose that King Edward's sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate", is **Unverified** (from a search summary). Page in Pronay & Cox believed to be pp. 162–163 (Unverified).

**Date.** The colophon (Fulman p. 578, Verified) reads: *"Acta sunt haec & expleta apud Croylandiam, Anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo octogesimo sexto, per spatium decem dierum quorum postremus fuit ultimus dies mensis Aprilis ejusdem anni."* — "These things were done and completed at Crowland in the year of our Lord 1486, in the space of ten days, the last of which was the last day of April of the same year." So: written in ten days ending 30 April 1486, eight months after Bosworth, under Henry VII. The author is anonymous; he describes himself as a doctor of canon law who was a royal councillor and went on an embassy for Edward IV; he was evidently close to the Yorkist government (identity debated; the traditional candidate is John Russell, bishop of Lincoln, which most modern scholars reject — Unverified summary of the debate).

**Passage 1 — the princes in the Tower and the first stirrings (Fulman p. 567; Verified):**

> *"Interim & dum haec agerentur, remanserunt duo praedicti Regis Edwardi filii sub certa deputata custodia infra Turrim Londoniarum, pro quorum ab hujusmodi captivitate liberatione, coeperunt populi Australes & Occidentales Regni plurima submurmurare, inire coetus & conventicula … [it was reported that some of the late king's daughters should be smuggled abroad] … ut si quid dictis masculis humanitus in turri contingeret, nihilominus per salvandas personas filiarum Regnum aliquando ad veros rediret haeredes."*

Riley pp. 490–491: "In the meantime, and while these things were going on, the two sons of king Edward before-named remained in the Tower of London, in the custody of certain persons appointed for that purpose. In order to deliver them from this captivity, the people of the southern and western parts of the kingdom began to murmur greatly, and to form meetings and confederacies … in order that, if any fatal mishap should befall the said male children of the late king in the Tower, the kingdom might still, in consequence of the safety of the daughters, some day fall again into the hands of the rightful heirs."

Note the phrase *si quid … humanitus … contingeret* — "if anything should happen to them, as happens to mortals": the plotters of late summer 1483 were planning *for the contingency* of the boys' deaths, which means that at that moment they believed, or hoped, the boys were still alive.

**Passage 2 — the rumour of death and the turn to Richmond (Fulman p. 568; Verified):**

> *"Cumque tandem populus per circuitum civitatis Londoniarum tam in Cantia, Essexia, Suthsexia, Hamptonia, Dorsetia, Devonia, Somerseta, Wiltshiria & Barkshiria, aliisque nonnullis Comitatibus Australibus Regni, ad ulciscendum praemissas suas considerationes iniret, factis proclamationibus publicis quod Dux Bukynghamiae Henricus, qui per id temporis habitabat apud Brecknok in Wallia, facti paenitens, Capitaneus & principalis existeret, vulgatum est, dictos Regis Edwardi pueros, quo genere violenti interitus ignoratur, decessisse in fata. Quamobrem hi omnes qui hanc commotionem incoeperant, videntes quod si novum suae conquestionis Capitaneum invenire non possent, brevi de omnibus actum esset, meminerunt Henrici Comitis Richmundiae, qui jam multis annis exul morabatur in Brittannia. Ad hunc missum est per dictum Ducem Bukynghamiae, de consilio domini Eliensis, captivi sui apud Brecknok, ut ille festinaret in Regno Angliae quam citissime posset applicare, habiturus in conjugem Elizabeth seniorem filiam defuncti Regis, simul & cum ea universi Regni possessionem."*

Riley p. 491: "At last, it was determined by the people in the vicinity of the city of London, throughout the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorsetshire, Devonshire, Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Berkshire, as well as some others of the southern counties of the kingdom, to avenge their grievances before-stated; upon which, public proclamation was made, that Henry, duke of Buckingham, who at this time was living at Brecknock in Wales, had repented of his former conduct, and would be the chief mover in this attempt, while a rumour was spread that the sons of king Edward before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how. Accordingly, all those who had set on foot this insurrection, seeing that if they could find no one to take the lead in their designs, the ruin of all would speedily ensue, turned their thoughts to Henry, earl of Richmond, who had been for many years living in exile in Britany. To him a message was, accordingly, sent, by the duke of Buckingham, by advice of the lord bishop of Ely, who was then his prisoner at Brecknock, requesting him to hasten over to England as soon as he possibly could, for the purpose of marrying Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late king, and, at the same time, together with her, taking possession of the throne."

Literal rendering of the key clause: *vulgatum est … pueros … decessisse in fata* = "it was put about / spread abroad that the said boys of King Edward had departed this life (had gone to their fate), by what kind of violent death is not known." *Vulgatum est* is impersonal ("it was made common knowledge / rumoured"), and *ignoratur* is present tense: the writer, in April 1486, still says the manner is unknown.

**Passage 3 — 1484, the Rennes oath alluded to (Riley pp. 496–497; Verified in Riley, Latin not separately checked):** describing Richard's fears in 1484 the writer refers to "the earl of Richmond, to whom they had sworn fealty as their king, in the hope of his contracting an alliance with the daughter of king Edward". This is Crowland's only reference to the oath sworn by the exiles.

**Passage 4 — the same passage in Fulman continues (p. 568, Verified)** with Buckingham's flight, capture and execution at Salisbury "in die commemorationis Animarum" (All Souls, 2 November 1483) "eo non obstante quod tunc in Dominica accidebat" (although it fell on a Sunday).

**What the writer could know.** He was at or near the centre of Yorkist government in 1483–85 (he describes council business), so he is well placed to know what was *said*; but he reports the deaths only as a rumour, does not say who spread it, and does not say he believed it. He is writing after Bosworth, when it was safe and expedient to blame Richard, and yet he still does not assert the deaths as fact.

**Classification.** **(R)** — explicitly a rumour (*vulgatum est*), with the manner unknown (*ignoratur*). **(I)** by the reader: the rebels' change of candidate from Edward V to Richmond is the writer's evidence that people *believed* the rumour. **(P)** moderate: written under Henry VII by a former Yorkist official hostile to Richard, but the tone is sober and he refrains from claiming knowledge.

**What it can bear.** (i) That in the late summer of 1483 the boys were in the Tower under guard and the southern plotters aimed to free them. (ii) That before or during the October rising a rumour that they had died violently was "spread", and that it changed the rebels' aim to Richmond and Elizabeth. It cannot bear the *fact* of their deaths, the date, the place, the method or the agent; the writer says none of these is known.

---

## 3. Guillaume de Rochefort's speech to the Estates General at Tours, 15 January 1484

**Text and edition.** Jehan Masselin, *Journal des États généraux de France tenus à Tours en 1484 sous le règne de Charles VIII*, ed. A. Bernier (Paris 1835, Collection de documents inédits), Latin p. 38 with Bernier's French translation p. 39. archive.org id `journaldesetatsg00franuoft`. **Verified.** (Note: the OCR reproduces the page header of p. 38 as "58"; the running heads and sequence show it is p. 38.)

**Latin (p. 38, Verified):**

> *"… quod in hoc quoque non ambigimus, si postremis Anglis proferre testimonium. Aspicite, quaeso, quidnam post mortem regis Eduardi in ea terra contigerit, ejus scilicet jam adultos, et egregios liberos impune trucidari, et regni diadema in horum extinctorem, populis faventibus, delatum. Et si paulo altius ejus gentis historias repetamus, constabit vix duos, aut ad summum tres reges quietos fuisse, sineque mutatione regnum assecutos, quin a populo facile in alienam sobolem, veris relictis haeredibus, transferretur."*

**Bernier's French (p. 39, Verified):** "Regardez, je vous prie, les événements qui, après la mort du roi Edouard, sont arrivés dans ce pays. Contemplez ses enfants, déjà grands et braves, massacrés impunément, et la couronne transportée à l'assassin par la faveur des peuples! Et, si nous remontons plus haut vers le passé de cette nation, il sera prouvé qu'à peine deux ou trois au plus de ses rois sont restés tranquilles et sont parvenus au trône sans révolutions…"

**English:** "Look, I pray you, at what has happened in that land since the death of King Edward: his children, already grown and distinguished, slaughtered with impunity, and the crown of the kingdom carried, with the people's approval, to their destroyer. And if we look a little further back into that nation's history, it will be found that scarcely two, or at most three, kings have reigned in peace and obtained the kingdom without upheaval …"

Note that the text has *impune trucidari* (present passive infinitive: "to be slaughtered with impunity"), not "impune trucidatos" as sometimes quoted.

**Date and circumstances.** Opening address of the Chancellor of France to the Estates General at Tours, 15 January 1484 — the first public assertion, anywhere, that the boys had been killed. The context is a warning to the French estates against the dangers of a minority (Charles VIII was thirteen) and against English-style disloyalty; England is the rhetorical foil.

**What the speaker could know.** Only what reached the French court from England. France was hostile to Richard III (the regency of Anne de Beaujeu feared an English invasion; Richard had resumed privateering and refused to renew Louis XI's pension arrangements), and Mancini's patron Angelo Cato was a councillor at that same court. Armstrong and others have suggested Rochefort's information *was* Mancini's report (Unverified attribution); if so, Rochefort turned Mancini's "suspicion" into a certainty. No independent French source of knowledge is known.

**Classification.** **(K)** in form — asserted as fact — but on no stated evidence; in substance **(R)** at one remove. **(P)** strongly: the French crown, an enemy of Richard III, in a set-piece political speech.

**What it can bear.** That by mid-January 1484 the death of *both* boys was being asserted as fact at the French court. It cannot bear the truth of the assertion.

---

## 4. The October 1483 rebellion and its documents

### 4a. Crowland — see §2, passages 1–2 and 4.

The sequence Crowland gives is: (i) plotting in the south "to free them from captivity"; (ii) a public proclamation that Buckingham would lead; (iii) *vulgatum est* that the boys were dead; (iv) the turn to Richmond, with the plan to marry Elizabeth of York. The rising itself collapsed; Buckingham was beheaded at Salisbury on 2 November 1483.

### 4b. The Rennes oath, Christmas Day 1483

No document of the oath itself survives, so far as I could find (Unverified negative). The narrative source is Polydore Vergil, Book XXV.

Latin (1555 ed., Book XXV, via Dana Sutton's hypertext of the 1555 Basel edition, `http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/25lat.html`; **Verified** in that edition, 1534 wording not checked):
> *"Qui in Rhedones profectus … iam advenit Christi dies natalis … Henricus primum dato iureiurando promittit se simul atque regno potitus fuerit ducturum in matrimoniam Elizabeth Edouardi regis filiam …"*

Sixteenth-century English (Ellis, *Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History*, Camden Soc. 29, 1844, pp. 203–204; archive.org `threebooksofpoly00vergiala`; **Verified**): "… the day of Chrystes natyvytee … erle Henry uppon his othe promysyd, that so soone as he showld be king he wold mary Elyzabeth, king Edwards dowghter; than aftir they swore unto him homage as thowghe he had bene already created king …"

Crowland's allusion (§2, passage 3) corroborates that the exiles "had sworn fealty as their king" to Richmond.

**Bearing.** The oath is evidence that by Christmas 1483 the Yorkist exiles in Brittany had accepted Richmond as king-designate and Elizabeth as the Yorkist heir — which is intelligible only if they believed her brothers were dead (or at least irrecoverable). It is evidence of *belief*, not of fact; and both narrators (Vergil, Crowland) wrote after 1485. **(I)/(R)**.

### 4c. Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor, 9 and 21 June 1483

C. L. Kingsford (ed.), *The Stonor Letters and Papers 1290–1483*, vol. II (Camden 3rd ser. 30, 1919), nos. 330–331, pp. 159–161; archive.org `stonorletterspap02king`. **Verified.** Stallworth was a servant of the Chancellor, Bishop Russell.

9 June: "… þe Quene kepys stylle Westm., my lord of Ȝorke, my lord of Salysbury with othyr mo wyche wyll nott departe as ȝytt … My lord Protector, my lord of Bukyngham with all othyr lordys, as well temporale as spirituale, were at Westm. in þe councel chambre from x to ij, butt þer wass none þat spake with þe Qwene. Þer is gret besyness ageyns þe coronacion, wyche schalbe þis day fortnyght as we say. … þe Kyng is at þe towre."

21 June: "Worschipfull Sir, I commend me to you, and for tydynges I hold you happy that ye ar oute of the prese, for with huse is myche trobull, and every manne dowtes other. As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded sone apone noon. On Monday last was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest men: ther was the dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord Cardenale, my lord Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and with hym mette my lord of Bukyngham in the myddes of the hall of Westm.: my lord protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore with many lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord Cardenale to the toure, wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery. … Yt is thought ther schalbe xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of Bukyngham men in London this weeke: to what intent I knowe note but to kepe the peas. … All þe lord Chamberleyne mene be come my lordys of Bokynghame menne."

**Bearing.** Contemporary, non-partisan, first-hand: Edward V in the Tower by 9 June; Richard of York delivered out of sanctuary on Monday 16 June and taken to the Tower, where he "is … mery" on 21 June; Hastings beheaded on "Fryday last". Nothing about any death. These letters fix the *terminus post quem* (both boys alive and in the Tower on 21 June 1483). Not (K)/(R) for a death.

### 4d. Paston letters

John Howard, duke of Norfolk, to John Paston, 10 October 1483 (Gairdner, *The Paston Letters*, vol. VI (1904), no. 994; archive.org `pastonlettersad06gairuoft`; **Verified**): "It is soo that the Kentysshmen be up in the weld, and sey that they wol come and robbe the cite, which I shall lett yf I may." — the Kentish rising, with **no mention of the princes**. I found nothing in the Paston correspondence of 1483–85 that refers to the boys' fate.

### 4e. Plumpton correspondence

Not checked (**Unverified**). From memory, Edward Plumpton's letter from London of 18 October 1483 (Stapleton, *Plumpton Correspondence*, Camden Soc. 1839, c. p. 44) reports Buckingham's rising and the muster against him but does not mention the princes.

### 4f. The Cely memorandum, June 1483 — see §5h.

---

## 5. Short English notices

### 5a. Robert Ricart, *The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar* (entry for the mayoral year Sept. 1483–Sept. 1484)

Ed. Lucy Toulmin Smith (Camden Soc. n.s. 5, 1872), p. 46; archive.org `ricart-maire-of-bristowe`. **Verified.**

> "[after the great flood of October 1483 and:] And sone after Herry Duc of Buks was bihedded at Sarum.
> \* And this yere the two sonnes of King E. were put to scylence in the Towre of London."

Toulmin Smith's note to the asterisk (p. 46, Verified): "This is written by Ricart in the margin, as though he had gone on and forgotten it."

**Date/knowledge.** Ricart, town clerk of Bristol, compiled the Kalendar from 1479 and kept it up year by year; this entry is under the year of mayor Henry Vaughan (1483–84), placed after Buckingham's execution, but it is a marginal addition and its date of writing cannot be fixed (it could be contemporary or added at any later time). He was a provincial official recording "what was said". *Put to silence* is a euphemism which in fifteenth-century usage normally means killed, but the writer names no source.

**Classification.** **(K)** in form (a flat annal entry), **(R)** in substance (Bristol common report). Not obviously partisan.

**Bearing.** That in Bristol the boys were believed dead, and the entry-writer associated the belief with the year 1483–84. Cannot bear date, agent or manner.

### 5b. The "London citizen's" notes, College of Arms MS 2M6 (R. Firth Green, EHR 96 (1981), 585–90)

**Not accessed** (Wiley/OUP paywall). What I have, all **Unverified**: R. Firth Green, "Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483–1488", *English Historical Review* 96 (1981), 585–590, printing notes from College of Arms MS 2M6 (a 126-folio miscellany later owned by Christopher Barker, Suffolk Herald 1514–22, whose name is on fol. 106r). The note on 1483 says that the sons of Edward IV "were put to death in the Tower of London" and adds "be the vise [advice] of the Duke of Buckingham" (the phrase "be the vise of the Duke of Buckingham" is quoted in Wikipedia's article "Princes in the Tower", citing Firth Green; the surrounding sentence is my paraphrase of a search summary, not the text). Full sentence, spelling and folio number **not obtained**.

**Bearing (provisional).** The earliest English text to name an agent; it names Buckingham as adviser, not Richard as killer. Date of writing within 1483–88 is Firth Green's argument, which I could not check. **(K)** in form; **(R)** in substance. To be re-verified before use.

### 5c. The Anlaby cartulary

**Not accessed.** Points established only at second hand (**Unverified**): a genealogical/king-list note in the Anlaby family cartulary gives 22 June 1483 as the date of Edward V's death; a related note gives 26 June 1483 and describes the body as *submersum* (drowned). C. F. Richmond, "The death of Edward V", *Northern History* 25 (1989), 278–80, showed that the entry was written after 1509 (cited in Ashdown-Hill's Colchester note, below, n. 12). The Latin wording was not obtained (the richardiii.net bibliography PDF that summarises it returned 403). **(K)** in form; late (post-1509) and internally inconsistent (two dates). Not usable as evidence for 1483 without the original.

### 5d. The Colchester Oath Book, fol. 107r

J. Ashdown-Hill, "The Colchester Oath Book and the Princes in the Tower", *Essex Archaeology and History*, Shorter Notes, pp. 226–230 (volume believed 28, 1997 — **Unverified**); PDF read. **Latin Verified from Ashdown-Hill's transcription** (not from the manuscript). Heading of the bailiffs' year, written in red ink at Michaelmas 1483:

> *"Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis tunc primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R—p [erased; Ashdown-Hill suggests 'Regis spurii'] quinti nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post conquestum primo incipiente …"*

"In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Christmas, bailiffs of the town of Colchester, from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the twenty-second year of the lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, until the eighth day of April then next following, [and] in the first year of the reign of King Edward the fifth, *late* son of the lord Edward IV after the Conquest, until the twentieth day of June then next following, [and] in the first year of the reign of King Richard III after the Conquest beginning …"

Benham's 1907 calendar of the Oath Book (p. 134) rendered *nuper filii* as "late son of Edward IV". Ashdown-Hill's point is that *nuper* is ambiguous: Edward IV is *nuper Regis … iam defuncti* (late king, now dead), while Edward V is only *nuper filii* — "late son", which could mean legally superseded (bastardised) rather than physically dead. The heading is a contemporary official record (c. 29 September 1483) but it is not a statement about death at all.

**Classification.** Neither (K) nor (R): an ambiguous formula. Not partisan. **Bearing.** Only that in September 1483 the Colchester clerk knew Edward V's reign to have ended on 20 June [sic] and treated him as "late/former"; it cannot bear death.

### 5e. The Great Chronicle of London (compiled c. 1512, probably by Robert Fabyan)

Ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London 1938); pages believed 234 and 236–237 (**Unverified**). Edition not accessible to me; wording below is from secondary quotation (a Richard III Society web page) and **Unverified as to spelling and completeness**.

Under the mayoral year of Edmund Shaa (Oct. 1482–Oct. 1483): "duryng this mayris yere the childyr of king Edward were seen shotyng and playyng in the Gardyn of the Towyr by sundry tymys."

Under a later year (1483–84 or 1484–85; placement Unverified), in modernised form: after Easter "much whispering was among the people that the king had put the children of King Edward to death". And, in the retrospective passage after Bosworth (modernised, Unverified): "some said they were murdered atween two feather beds, some said they were drowned in malvesy, and some said they were sticked with a venomous potion; but howsoever they were put to death, certain it was that before that day they were departed from this world; of which cruel deed Sir James Tyrell was reported to be the doer, but others put that weight upon an old servant of King Richard's named [blank]."

**Bearing.** Written c. 1512 by a London citizen who had lived through 1483 (Fabyan was a draper and alderman, d. 1513). The "shooting and playing" notice is the last recorded sighting of the boys and places it in the mayoral year ending 28 October 1483 — but a London chronicler putting the sighting in "this mayor's year" could mean any date up to late October. The rumour passage is an explicit catalogue of *rumours* with the writer's own confession that nobody knew the manner. **(R)**; mildly **(P)** (a Tudor-era London writer).

### 5f. Robert Fabyan, *The New Chronicles of England and France* (printed 1516)

Ed. Henry Ellis (London 1811), passages under Edmund Shaa (1483) and Robert Billesdon (1483–84), pp. 669–670 (page numbers Unverified in my OCR copy, which lacks headers at this point; text **Verified**); archive.org `newchroniclesofe00fabyuoft`. The 1559 edition gives the same words.

> "In which passe tyme the prynce, or of ryght kynge Edwarde the. v., with his broder the duke of Yorke, were put vnder suer kepynge within the Tower, in suche wyse that they neuer came abrode after. And thus endyd the reygne of Edward the. v. when he had borne the name of a kyng by the space of two monethes and. xi. dayes."

> "IN this yere [Billesdon, 1483–84] the foresayd grudge encreasinge, and the more for asmoche as the common fame went that kynge Richarde hadde within the Tower put vnto secrete deth the. ii. sonnes of his broder Edwarde the. iiii. for the whiche, and other causes hadde within the brest of the duke of Bukkyngham, the sayd duke, in secrete maner, conspyred agayne hym …"

**Bearing.** Fabyan expressly reports "common fame", not knowledge, and ties the fame to the autumn of 1483 as the cause of Buckingham's conspiracy. **(R)**; **(P)** mild (Tudor-era London).

### 5g. John Rous, *Historia Regum Angliae* (written 1486–1491)

Ed. Thomas Hearne (2nd ed., Oxford 1745), pp. 214–216; archive.org `b30517023`. **Verified.**

p. 214: *"Et in brevi dominum suum regem Edwardum quintum, actu regem, sed non coronatum, cum fratre suo Ricardo a Westmonasterio sub promissione securitatis suscepto incarceravit, ita quod ex post paucissimis notum fuit qua morte martirizati sunt. Thronum regium tunc ascendit occisorum, quorum Protector in minori aetate fuisset [p. 215] ipse, tyrannus rex Ricardus …"*
— "And shortly he imprisoned his lord King Edward V, king in fact but not crowned, together with his brother Richard, received from Westminster under promise of safety, so that afterwards it was known to very few by what death they were martyred. Then he himself, the tyrant King Richard, who had been Protector of the slain in their minority, ascended the royal throne …"

p. 215: *"Dominum suum regem Edwardum quintum blandiendo cum amplexibus & osculis recepit, & infra circiter tres menses vel parum ultra cum fratre suo interfecit, & dominam Annam reginam suam filiam comitis Warrwici intoxicavit."*
— "He received his lord King Edward V with flattery, embraces and kisses, and within about three months or a little more killed him together with his brother, and poisoned his queen the lady Anne, daughter of the earl of Warwick."

p. 216: *"Rege Edwardo quinto incarcerato rex Ricardus tercius omnes gazas suas contulit Henrico duci Bukkynghamiae"* — "With King Edward V imprisoned, King Richard III bestowed all his treasures on Henry duke of Buckingham."

**Date/knowledge.** Rous (chantry priest at Guy's Cliffe, Warwick; d. January 1492) wrote this after Bosworth and dedicated it to Henry VII. In his own *Rous Roll* (c. 1483–85) he had praised Richard as a good lord; he then rewrote the Latin roll to erase the praise. He was not in London in 1483 and names no informant. "About three months or a little more" after receiving Edward V (4 May 1483) gives roughly August 1483 — the earliest explicit date-bracket in any source, but Rous does not say how he knows it, and in the same breath he says the manner was "known to very few".

**Classification.** **(K)** in form; **(P)** flagrant — Tudor dedication, with the poison-of-Anne charge and the two-years-in-the-womb monster story on the same page. Value as independent evidence: very low.

### 5h. The Cely memorandum, June 1483

*The Cely Papers*, ed. H. E. Malden (Camden 3rd ser. 1, 1900), no. 114, pp. 132–133; archive.org `celypapersselect00malduoft`. **Verified.** An undated jotting in George Cely's hand; Malden dates it between Hastings' death (13 June) and Howard's creation as duke of Norfolk (28 June), and before Richard's accession (26 June).

> "Ther ys grett romber in the reme, the scottes has done grett yn Ynglond, schamberlayne ys dessesset in trobell the chaunseler ys dysprowett and nott content the boshop of Ely ys ded yff the kyng God saffe his lyfe wher desett, the Dewk of Glosetter wher in any parell, geffe my lorde prynsse wher God defend wher trobellett, yf my lord of Northehombyrlond wher dede or grettly trobellytt, yf my lorde Haward wher slayne De Munsewr Sent Jonys."

Modernised: "There is great rumour in the realm; the Scots have done great [harm] in England; [the] Chamberlain is deceased in trouble; the Chancellor is deprived and not content; the bishop of Ely is dead [sic — Morton was alive]; if the king, God save his life, were deceased; [if] the duke of Gloucester were in any peril; if my lord prince, which God defend, were troubled; if my lord of Northumberland were dead or greatly troubled; if my lord Howard were slain. — From Monsieur Saint John's [Sir John Weston, prior of St John]."

**Bearing.** A list of *feared* contingencies in the third week of June 1483, one of them the king's death — with the writer's prayer "God save his life". It shows the atmosphere ("every manne dowtes other", as Stallworth says the same week), not an event. Its "bishop of Ely is dead" is false, which warns against treating the other items as news. **(R)** (fear/rumour); not partisan.

---

## 6. Continental sources

### 6a. Philippe de Commynes, *Mémoires* (written 1489–1498)

Ed. B. de Mandrot (Paris 1901–03), t. I pp. 59 (Livre I ch. VII) and 455 (Livre V ch. XX); t. II pp. 64–65 (Livre VI ch. VIII); archive.org `mmoires01commuoft` / `mmoires02commuoft`. **Verified.** (Calmette's edition, 1924–25, not consulted; page concordance Unverified.)

t. I p. 59: *"Mort Edouard, son frere second, duc de Glosestre, fit mourir les deux filz dudict Edouard, et declaira les filles bastardes et se fist couronner roy. … ce cruel roy Richard, qui, peu avant, avoit faict mourir ses nepveux."* — "Edward being dead, his second brother the duke of Gloucester put to death the two sons of the said Edward, declared the daughters bastards, and had himself crowned king … this cruel King Richard, who a little before had put his nephews to death."

t. I p. 455: *"cest evesque de Bas descouvrit ceste matière à ce duc de Clocestre, qui luy aida bien à exécuter son mauvais vouloir; et feist mourir ses deux nepveux et se fist roy, appellé roy Richard."* — "this bishop of Bath [Stillington] disclosed this matter [the precontract] to the duke of Gloucester, who helped him well to carry out his evil will; and he put his two nephews to death and made himself king, called King Richard."

t. II pp. 64–65: *"… receupt lettres du duc de Claucestre, qui s'estoit faict roy d'Angleterre et se signoit Richard, lequel avoit faict mourir les deux filz du roy Edouard son frère. … le Roy ne voulut respondre à ses lettres ne ouyr le messaige, et l'estima très cruel et mauvais. Car après le trespas dudit roy Edouard, ledit duc de Claucestre avoit faict hommage à son nepveu comme à son roy et souverain seigneur, et incontinent après commist ce cas."* — "[Louis XI] received letters from the duke of Gloucester, who had made himself king of England and signed himself Richard, who had put to death the two sons of King Edward his brother … The king would neither answer his letters nor hear the messenger, and held him very cruel and wicked. For after the death of the said King Edward the said duke of Gloucester had done homage to his nephew as his king and sovereign lord, and immediately afterwards committed this deed."

And in the same chapter: *"Le roy Richard, il ne le porta pas loing, ne le duc de Boucquignant, qui avoit faict mourir les deux enffans, car ledit roy Richard propre, en peu de jours après, le feit mourir."* — "King Richard did not carry it far, nor the duke of Buckingham, who had put the two children to death, for the said King Richard himself, a few days later, put him to death." (The 1524 printed edition reads instead "ne le duc duquel il avoit fait mourir les deux enfants" — "nor the duke by whom he had had the two children put to death"; either way Buckingham is named as the killer in this chapter, in contradiction with Book I and Book V, where Richard is the killer.) Mandrot dates the composition of Book VI to 1490–spring 1491.

**Date/knowledge.** Commynes was a councillor of Louis XI, who died 30 August 1483; the "letters from Gloucester" episode belongs to July–August 1483 — so Commynes, if the anecdote is accurate, is saying that the French court believed the boys dead *before 30 August 1483*. But the passage was written c. 1490–91, when the deaths were universally assumed, and Commynes may be projecting. His information is French-court information (see §3).

**Classification.** **(K)** in form; **(P)** — French court, and Commynes explicitly moralises ("cruel et mauvais"). Internally inconsistent about the agent (Richard / Buckingham).

### 6b. Jean Molinet, *Chroniques*, ch. C (written 1490s–1500s)

Ed. J.-A. Buchon (Paris 1827–28), t. II pp. 400–403; archive.org `chroniquesdejea02buchgoog`. **Verified.** (Modern ed. Doutrepont and Jodogne, Brussels 1935–37, not consulted; Unverified pagination.) Molinet was *indiciaire* (official historiographer) of the Burgundian court from 1475.

> *"Ils furent environ cinq sepmaines prisonniers; et par le capitaine de la tour, le duc Richard les fit occultement mourir et estaindre. Aulcuns disent qu'il les fit bouter en une grande huge, et enclorre illec sans boire et sans manger. Aultres disent qu'ils furent estains entre deux quieutes, couchants en une mesme chambre. Et quant vint à l'exécution, Pierre, l'aisné fils, dormoit, et le jeune veilloit … 'Pourquoi tuez-vous mon frère? tuez-moi et le laissez vivre!' … les corps rués en quelque lieu secret; puis furent recueillis, et après la mort du roy Richard eurent royaux obsecques. Ce mesme jour arriva en la tour de Londres le duc de Boucquinghen, lequel fut mecreu d'avoir estainct et occis lesdits enfants, à cause qu'il prétendoit avoir droict à la couronne."*

"They were prisoners about five weeks; and by the captain of the Tower Duke Richard had them secretly put to death and extinguished. Some say that he had them shut into a great chest and enclosed there without drink or food. Others say that they were smothered between two quilts, lying in the same room. And when it came to the execution, Pierre [sic], the elder son, was asleep and the younger awake … 'Why are you killing my brother? Kill me and let him live!' … the bodies thrown into some secret place; then they were recovered, and after King Richard's death had royal obsequies. That same day the duke of Buckingham arrived at the Tower of London, who was suspected of having extinguished and killed the said children, because he claimed to have a right to the crown."

Molinet also gives the boys' exchange "Mon frère, apprenez à danser" / "Il vauldroit mieux que vous et moi apprinsions à mourir" ("learn to dance" / "it would be better that you and I learned to die"), and calls the boys "Edouard et Georges".

**Date/knowledge.** Written years later at the Burgundian court, where Margaret of York (Richard's sister) was dowager duchess; Molinet's account is garbled (wrong names, "royal obsequies" after Bosworth, Buckingham at the Tower) and self-consciously reports alternatives ("aulcuns disent … aultres disent"). "Five weeks" after the boys were imprisoned together (16 June) points to late July 1483.

**Classification.** **(R)** — a catalogue of rumours; **(K)** in form only. **(P)** ambiguous: Burgundian, later a sponsor of Warbeck, yet hostile to Richard here.

### 6c. The *Divisiekroniek* (Cornelius Aurelius, *Die cronycke van Hollandt, Zeelandt ende Vrieslant*, Leiden: Jan Seversz, 1517), cap. LII, fol. 392r–v

DBNL facsimile edition, id `aure001cron02_01`, PDF pp. 1504–1506. **Verified.**

> *"So is dan in ditselve jaer van LXXXIII in maerte oflivich geworden haestelicken Eduwaert van Jorcke … afterlatende II sonen, als Eduwaert ende Rijchaert ende een dochter. Dese coninc Eduwaert hadde enen broeder ghenoemt hertoghe Rychaert van Cloucester, ende was een wreet, fel man, ende arbeyde seer om dese II sonen in sijnre bewaernisse te crigen … heeft se tot sinen wille gecregen, ende si worden gestelt in handen van den grave van Bockingen. Nu wouden enige seggen dat se die hertoge van Cloucester, hoer oem voerseit, dede versmachten om selver coninc te sine. Enige andere willen seggen dat die grave van Bockingen dese kinderen ter doot brochte, hopende selver coninc te werden … Enige seggen oec dat dese grave Henric van Bockinghen alleen een kint ter doot brochte, ende dat ander … spaerde hi ende lietet heimelic uuten lande voeren. Ende dit kint was geheten Rychaert … die Witte Rose."*

"So then in this same year of [14]83, in March [sic], Edward of York died suddenly … leaving two sons, Edward and Richard, and a daughter. This King Edward had a brother named Duke Richard of Gloucester, and he was a cruel, fierce man, and worked hard to get these two sons into his keeping … got them at his will, and they were put into the hands of the earl [duke] of Buckingham. Now some would say that the duke of Gloucester, their uncle aforesaid, had them *versmachten* [smothered / starved — the Middle Dutch word covers both] in order to be king himself. Some others will say that the earl of Buckingham brought these children to death, hoping to become king himself … Some also say that this Earl Henry of Buckingham put only one child to death, and the other … he spared and had secretly carried out of the country. And this child was called Richard … the White Rose."

**Date/knowledge.** Compiled c. 1512–17 in Holland, where Perkin Warbeck ("the White Rose") had been received at Margaret of York's court in 1492–95; the chapter reports three incompatible stories as current opinion. **(R)** three ways; **(P)** — Burgundian-Habsburg milieu, sympathetic to the Warbeck tradition. It is also the earliest printed statement of the "one boy escaped" version.

### 6d. Caspar Weinreich's Danzig chronicle (entry under 1483)

Quoted from Livia Visser-Fuchs, "English events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle, 1461–1495", *The Ricardian* vol. 7 no. 95 (Dec. 1986), pp. 310–320, at p. 316; original edition Th. Hirsch and F. A. Vossberg, *Caspar Weinreich's Danziger Chronik* (Berlin 1855) not consulted. **Verified in Visser-Fuchs' transcription.**

> *"Item vort diesen somer lisz sich Ritzert des konigs bruder mechtig machen und kronen in Engelandt und liesz seines bruders kinder todten und die konigin auch hemlich wegbringen."*

Visser-Fuchs' translation: "Item later this summer Richard, the King's brother, had himself put in power and crowned in England and he had his brother's children killed, and the Queen put away secretly also."

Visser-Fuchs (p. 316 n. 27) compares Jan Allertsz, recorder of Rotterdam (d. 1489), in *Nederlandse Historische Bronnen* 2 (The Hague 1980), pp. 1–95: "after king Edward's death he killed two of his brother's children, boys, or so he was accused: but anyway, they were killed and he himself became king" (her translation; Dutch not obtained).

**Date/knowledge.** Weinreich was a Danzig skipper/merchant keeping a year-by-year chronicle; the entry stands under 1483 ("this summer") and his news came by the Hanseatic sea-route from London. Visser-Fuchs notes that his later 1485 entry garbles Bosworth (he thought Richmond came after Richard was killed), which shows the delay and distortion of his news. Whether the 1483 entry was written in 1483 or retrospectively cannot be shown from the text. The "queen put away secretly" is false, which again warns against reading the entry as knowledge.

**Classification.** **(K)** in form, **(R)** in substance (merchant news); not partisan.

### 6e. Diego de Valera, letter to Ferdinand and Isabella, 1 March 1486, and *Crónica de los Reyes Católicos*

Letter: *Epístolas de Mosen Diego de Valera*, ed. J. A. de Balenchana (Madrid 1878), pp. 91–96; Chronicle: ed. J. de M. Carriazo (Madrid 1927), p. 212. Not accessed directly; quoted via Ana Álvarez Prieto, *Diego de Valera …* (BA thesis, 2020). **Spanish text Verified in that secondary source only.**

Chronicle p. 212: *"Tanta fue la maliçia del rey Ricardo de Inglaterra, que no solamente se afirma aver mandado matar con yerbas a su hermano el rey Eduardo, que estava haziendo guerra en Escocia, mas a dos sobrinos suyos a quien el reyno pertenesçía; los cuales muertos se llamó rey, e tomó la corona que le no pertenesçía."* — "So great was the malice of King Richard of England that it is affirmed that he not only ordered his brother King Edward, who was making war in Scotland, to be killed with poison, but also two nephews of his to whom the kingdom belonged; and they being dead he called himself king and took the crown that did not belong to him."

Letter, 1 March 1486, from El Puerto de Santa María: the news is given *"según la información de mercaderes dignos de fe, agora a esta villa venidos"* — "according to the information of trustworthy merchants now come to this town".

**Bearing.** Post-Bosworth merchant gossip in an Andalusian port; already contaminated (Edward IV poisoned while "making war in Scotland"). **(R)** — explicitly *se afirma*, "it is affirmed"; not partisan but transmits the Tudor-era common story.

---

## 7. Tudor narratives

### 7a. Polydore Vergil, *Anglica Historia*, Book XXV (drafted c. 1512–13; printed Basel 1534, 1546, 1555)

Latin quoted from the 1555 Basel edition via Dana Sutton's hypertext (`http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/25lat.html`; **Verified** there; 1534 wording not checked). English: Ellis, *Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History* (Camden Soc. 29, 1844), pp. 188–189, from the sixteenth-century translation in BL Royal MS 18 C viii–ix; archive.org `threebooksofpoly00vergiala`. **Verified.**

Latin: *"… alteri, id est Iacobo Terello, dederit negotium caedis maturandae. Ille imperata facere compulsus dolenter Londinum proficiscitur ac regios pueros exemplo in omni memoria prope inaudito necavit. Ita Edouardus princeps cum Ricardo fratre interiit, sed quo genere mortis miselli pueri affecti fuerint non plane liquet. Ricardus vero … paucis post diebus rumorem mortis puerorum in vulgus exire permisit …"*

Ellis pp. 188–189: "… commyttyd the charge of hastening that slawghter unto another, that is to say James Tyrrell, who, being forcyd to do the kings commandment, rode sorowfully to London, and … murderyd those babes of thyssew royall. Thys end had Prince Edward and Richarde his brother; but with what kinde of death these sely chyldren wer executyd yt is not certanely known. But king Richard … kept the slaughter not long secret, who, within few days after, permyttyd the rumor of ther death to go abrode …"

Vergil sets the murder during Richard's progress (he has Richard send the order from Gloucester/York after Brackenbury refused) — i.e. August–September 1483 — and says Richard let the rumour out "within few days", which he then uses to explain the October rising.

**Date/knowledge.** Vergil (Italian, in England from 1502) wrote at Henry VII's invitation; his draft was finished c. 1512–13 (manuscript, Vatican Urb. lat. 498 — Unverified) and revised for print in 1534. His informants were men of the Tudor court thirty years after the event; he names none for this episode. He is candid that the manner of death was "not certainly known" and he does **not** include the Tyrell confession, the smothering, or the burial under the stairs.

**Classification.** **(K)** in form (Tyrell named as agent, Richard as principal); **(P)** — official Tudor history; the hedge "quo genere mortis … non plane liquet" is (R).

### 7b. Sir Thomas More, *The History of King Richard the Third* (written c. 1513–1518; printed from More's own manuscript by William Rastell, *Workes*, 1557)

Ed. J. R. Lumby (Cambridge 1883, from Rastell 1557), pp. 80–85; archive.org `historykingrich00lumbgoog`. **Verified.** More's Latin version (*Omnia Latina opera*, Louvain 1565) not accessed (**Unverified**; it breaks off earlier than the English and does not contain the murder narrative in the same form — Unverified claim).

The framing sentences (pp. 80–81, Verified): "… the lamentable murther of his innocent nephewes … some remain yet in doubt, whither they wer in his dayes destroyde or no" — and — "I shall rehearse you the dolorous end of those babes, not after euery way that I haue heard, but after that way that I haue so hard by suche men and by such meanes, as me thinketh it wer hard but it should be true."

The narrative (pp. 81–85, Verified; extracts): Richard, on progress, sends John Grene to Sir Robert Brackenbury, who "kneling before our Lady in the Tower … he would neuer putte them to death to dye therfore"; Richard, on a "secret page"'s suggestion, commissions Sir James Tyrell; Brackenbury hands over the keys for one night; the keeper "black Wil or William Slaughter"; the murderers Miles Forest, "one of the foure that kept them, a felowe fleshed in murther before time", and John Dighton, "his own horsekeper, a big brode square strong knaue"; they came about midnight and, "keping down by force the fetherbed and pillowes hard vnto their mouthes, that within a while smored and stifled" the boys; Tyrell "caused those murtherers to burye them at the stayre foote, metely depe in the grounde vnder a great heape of stones"; Richard "would haue them buried in a better place, because thei wer a kinges sonnes. … Wherupon thei say that a prieste of syr Robert Brakenbury toke vp the bodyes again, and secretelye entered them in such place, as by the occasion of his deathe, whiche onely knew it, could neuer synce come to light. Very trouthe is it and well knowen, that at such time as syr James Tirell was in the Tower, for Treason committed agaynste the moste famous prince king Henry the seuenth, bothe Dighton and he were examined, and confessed the murther in maner aboue writen, but whither the bodies were remoued thei could nothing tel. And thus as I haue learned of them that much knew and litle cause had to lye, wer these two noble princes … priuily slaine and murthered, theyr bodies cast God wote where …" — and, of the murderers' ends, "Miles Forest at sainct Martens pecemele rotted away. Dighton in dede yet walketh on aliue in good possibilitie to bee hanged ere he dye."

**Date/knowledge.** More was about five years old in 1483; he was later a page in the household of John Morton (bishop of Ely in 1483, Buckingham's prisoner, an enemy of Richard), and the *History* is often thought to depend on Morton's circle. Tyrell was executed in May 1502 for treason on behalf of the de la Pole claim; no record of a confession by Tyrell or Dighton about the princes survives in any archive (Unverified negative, but the standard scholarly position), and Henry VII never published one. The work is unfinished, was never published by More, and is written as a rhetorical history with invented speeches. More himself says (a) some still doubt whether the boys died in Richard's reign, (b) he has heard several versions, and (c) the bodies were (on his own account) moved and never found — which the 1674 discovery under the stairs contradicts unless the priest's removal is discarded.

The 2021 research of Tim Thornton (University of Huddersfield news release, Verified; article "More on a murder: the deaths of the 'Princes in the Tower', and historiographical implications for the regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII", *History* 106 (2021) — full text not accessed, Unverified) shows that Miles Forest's sons Edward and Miles were at Henry VIII's court in the 1510s–20s in More's own circle; Thornton's press comment: "This has been the greatest murder mystery in British history, because we couldn't really rely on More as an account of what happened – until now". This bears on More's possible informants, not on the truth of the account. A 2026 follow-up by Thornton, "Miles Forrest, regicide, and his legacy" (DOI 10.1080/0078172X.2026.2623128), exists but I could not read it (Unverified).

**Classification.** **(K)** in form (the fullest circumstantial narrative and the only one to give method, burial place and confession); in substance **(R)** filtered through "such men and such means" whom More does not name; **(P)** — written under Henry VIII by a Tudor servant from a Morton milieu, though More is not a court propagandist and expressly records doubt.

**What it can bear.** The Tudor-court version as it stood c. 1513–18, and the claim that Tyrell and Dighton confessed in 1502. It cannot bear a 1483 date independently (More follows Vergil's placement on the progress), and its burial detail is contradicted by its own "removed by a priest" detail.

---

## 8. The attainder of Richard III, Rot. Parl. VI p. 276 (November 1485)

*Rotuli Parliamentorum* vol. VI (1777), p. 276, 1 Hen. VII; read on archive.org. **Verified.**

> "… oure Soveraigne Lord, calleinge unto hys blessed remembraunce thys high and grete charge adjoyned to hys Royall Majestie and Estate, not oblivious nor puttinge out of hys godly mind the unnaturall, mischeivous, and grete Perjuries, Treasons, Homicides and Murdres, in shedding of Infants blood, with manie other Wronges, odious Offences, and abominacons ayenst God and Man, and in espall oure said Soveraigne Lord, committed and doone by Richard late Duke of Glouc', callinge and nameinge hymself, by usurpacon, King Richard the IIIde; the which, with John late Duke of Norff', Thomas Erle of Surrie, Francis Lovell Knt Visc' Lovell, Walter Devereux Knt, late Lord Ferrers, John Lord Zouche, Robert Harrington, Richard Charleton, Ri[chard Ratcliffe] …" [the list continues; the offence is the assembling of a host "the xxi daie of August" 1485 at Bosworth].

**Bearing.** The only official Tudor statement, three months after Bosworth, in a document whose purpose was to attaint Richard's followers for treason. "Shedding of Infants blood" is generic, names no victim, gives no date, and is not repeated anywhere in the Tudor government's later records (Unverified negative). Note the irony that the attainder had to date Richard's "treason" from 21 August 1485, one day before Bosworth, to make his supporters traitors to Henry. **(P)** absolute; **(K)** only in the weakest sense (a general accusation); not evidence of what Henry VII knew.

---

## 9. The bones of 1674 and their examinations

### 9a. The discovery, 17 July 1674

Francis Sandford, *A Genealogical History of the Kings of England* (London 1677), pp. 402–404; archive.org `genealogicalhist00sand`. **Verified.** Sandford says he takes "this Relation from a Gentleman, an eye-witness, and principally concerned in the whole scrutiny" (identified by later writers as John Knight, Charles II's principal surgeon — identification Unverified; Knight's own manuscript account, printed by Tanner & Wright, not seen):

> "… upon Friday the .. day of July, An. 1674 … in order to the rebuilding of the several Offices in the Tower, and to clear the white Tower from all contiguous Buildings, digging down the Stairs which led from the Kings Lodgings, to the Chappel in the said Tower, about ten foot in the ground, were found the Bones of two Striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden Chest, which upon the survey were found proportionable to the ages of those two Brothers, viz. about thirteen and eleven years. The Scul of the one being entire, the other broken, as were indeed many of the other Bones, as also the Chest, by the violence of the Labourers, who not being sensible of what they had in hand, cast the rubbish and them away together, wherefore they were caused to sift the rubbish, and by that means preserved all the Bones. The Circumstances from Story being considered … Sir Thomas Chichley Kt. Master of the Ordnance … by whom this matter was reported to the King: upon the presumptions that these were the Bones of the said Princes, His Majesty King Charles the Second, was graciously pleased to command that the said Bones should be put into a Marble Urne …"

(17 July 1674 was a Friday, consistent with "Friday the .. day of July" and with the urn's date.)

Points to keep in view: "about ten foot in the ground" (not More's "meetly deep"); the bones were thrown on the rubbish heap and recovered by sifting — with no control over what else was sifted in; the identification was made "upon the presumptions" and from "the Circumstances from Story", i.e. from More.

### 9b. The urn (1678), Henry VII's Chapel, Westminster Abbey

Designed by Wren; inscription as printed in Henry Keepe, *Monumenta Westmonasteriensia* (1683) [OCR garbled and normalised by me against the fragments in John Dart, *Westmonasterium* (1742)]; **Verified in substance, individual letters checked against two printed transcriptions**:

> *"H.S.S. Reliquiae Edwardi V. Regis Angliae, & Richardi Ducis Eboracensis. Hos fratres germanos, Turre Londinensi conclusos, injectisque culcitris suffocatos, abdite & inhoneste tumulari jussit patruus Richardus perfidus regni praedo. Ossa desideratorum diu & multum quaesita, post annos CXCI, scalarum in ruderibus (scalae istae ad sacellum Turris albae nuper ducebant) alte defossa, indiciis certissimis reperta 17. die Julii, Anno Dom. 1674. Carolus II. Rex clementissimus, acerbam sortem miseratus, inter avita monumenta Principibus infelicissimis justa persolvit, Anno Dom. 1678. Annoque Regni sui 30."*

"Here lie the relics of Edward V, King of England, and Richard, Duke of York. These brothers, shut up in the Tower of London and smothered with bedclothes thrust upon them, their uncle Richard, perfidious usurper of the realm, ordered to be buried secretly and dishonourably. Their bones, long and much sought, were found, deeply buried in the rubble of the stairs (those stairs lately led to the chapel of the White Tower), by most certain indications, on 17 July 1674. Charles II, most merciful king, pitying their bitter lot, performed the funeral rites for these most unhappy princes among the monuments of their ancestors, in the year 1678, the 30th of his reign." (Westminster Abbey's website gives an English version; Verified.)

The inscription simply restates More ("culcitris suffocatos", "patruus Richardus") as fact: it is a Restoration monument, not evidence.

### 9c. Tanner and Wright, 1933 examination (*Archaeologia* 84 (1935), 1–26)

L. E. Tanner and W. Wright, "Recent investigations regarding the fate of the Princes in the Tower", *Archaeologia* 84 (1935), pp. 1–26. **Not accessed** (Cambridge Core returned an error page); findings summarised from P. W. Hammond's Ricardian article on the bones and the Richard III Society page "The bones in the urn" (**Unverified as to T&W's own wording; page references 8, 16, 18 are as cited by Hammond**). The urn was opened on 6 July 1933; Tanner (Keeper of the Muniments) and Wright (professor of anatomy) concluded, on the basis of dentition and bone development, that the bones were of two children aged about 12–13 and about 9–11 (consistent with the princes in the late summer of 1483); that Wormian bones in both skulls and hypodontia indicated consanguinity; that a red-brown stain on the elder's facial bones was a blood-stain consistent with suffocation; that the elder had extensive osteomyelitis of the jaw; and that the deposit also contained animal bones and rusty nails. No sexing was attempted (pre-pubertal skeletons), and no dating of any kind was possible in 1933.

### 9d. Criticisms

Summarised from Hammond and the Richard III Society page (**Unverified** as to page references): Lindsay (1934) on the "stain" (rust/soil); Kendall, *Richard the Third* (1955), appendix; R. Lyne-Pirkis (1963) and later anatomists: the ages cannot be fixed so narrowly, the sex is unknown, consanguinity cannot be inferred from Wormian bones or hypodontia, the stain is not a blood stain, and the bones' antiquity is unknown (the Tower site has Roman and earlier deposits). P. W. Hammond and W. J. White, "The sons of Edward IV: a re-examination of the evidence on their deaths and on the bones in Westminster Abbey", in *Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law*, ed. P. W. Hammond (London 1986), pp. 104–147 (pages Unverified): stress the four-year gap between discovery and interment (during which bones were reported to have been carried off as souvenirs), the reliance of the 1933 examiners on More as an "over-riding presumption", and conclude that neither the antiquity, the ages, the sexes nor the relationship of the two skeletons is established. T. Molleson, "Anne Mowbray and the Princes in the Tower: a study in identity", *London Archaeologist* 5 (1987), 258–262 (Unverified): a re-analysis using Anne Mowbray's skeleton (found 1964) which supported a family relationship — cited by both sides.

### 9e. Status of DNA / radiocarbon requests, to 2026

All from web sources (secondary; the Abbey's own statements were seen only as quoted):
- 1993 (BBC) and 1995 (Channel 4) requests to open the urn were refused by Dean Michael Mayne with the agreement of the Queen and the Home Secretary (Elizabeth St John, Substack post of 8 March 2026 — Verified as read; the underlying decisions Unverified).
- 2012–13: after the identification of Richard III's remains, Dean John Hall said further tests "could not therefore differentiate between Richard III or Henry VII – or another – being the guilty party"; a 2013 petition for testing was closed (Wikipedia; thewarsoftheroses.co.uk post 27 Nov 2023 — Verified as read).
- 2018: the Abbey stated there was "no change in policy on the remains: for the foreseeable future" (same source). Ashdown-Hill (d. 2018) and G. Moran had by then established a putative mitochondrial DNA reference line through Elizabeth Roberts (Unverified detail).
- 2023: press reports (*The Times*, *Daily Mirror*, as relayed by thewarsoftheroses.co.uk) that King Charles III was "believed to be supportive" of mtDNA testing and radiocarbon dating; no decision followed.
- As of March 2026 (St John, above): "No further scientific examination — no DNA analysis, no carbon dating … has been permitted since the flawed 1933 study." I found no report of any change between March and September 2026, but could not confirm this (see "Could not find").

**Bearing of §9 as a whole.** The 1674 bones are the only physical evidence ever adduced. They were identified by presumption from More's story, sifted from a rubbish heap, kept loose for four years, and examined once (1933) without sexing or dating and with More's account as the working hypothesis. Until they are radiocarbon-dated, sexed and DNA-tested they cannot bear a death in 1483, or any date, or even the identity of the two individuals.

---

## Summary table

| # | Source | Date of composition | Class | What it can bear | Verified? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mancini, *De occupatione* | finished 1 Dec 1483 (events to c. mid-July) | R, (P: French court) | Edward V withdrawn from sight after 13 June; a *suspicion* of his death in London by July; writer says he does not know if or how | English only (secondary); Latin Unverified |
| 2 | Crowland continuation | 10 days ending 30 Apr 1486 | R, I, (P: post-Bosworth Yorkist official) | Boys in Tower under guard late summer 1483; plotters first aimed to free them; a rumour of violent death was "spread" (*vulgatum est*) c. Oct 1483, manner unknown; rebels then turned to Richmond | Verified (Fulman 1684 pp. 567–568, 578; Riley pp. 490–491, 496–497) |
| 3 | Rochefort, Tours speech | 15 Jan 1484 | K (form), R (substance), P (French crown) | Deaths asserted as fact at French court by Jan 1484; no source given; "impune trucidari" | Verified (Masselin ed. Bernier 1835 pp. 38–39) |
| 4b | Rennes oath (Vergil; Crowland allusion) | oath 25 Dec 1483; texts 1486 / c. 1512–34 | I, R | Exiles treated Elizabeth as heir and Richmond as king → belief that the boys were dead/irrecoverable by Christmas 1483 | Verified (Vergil 1555 Lat.; Ellis pp. 203–204; Riley pp. 496–497) |
| 4c | Stallworth to Stonor | 9 and 21 June 1483 | none (contemporary fact) | Both boys alive and in the Tower on 21 June 1483; York "mery"; Hastings dead; fear in London | Verified (Kingsford ii nos. 330–331) |
| 4d | Paston (Norfolk, 10 Oct 1483) | 10 Oct 1483 | none | Kentish rising; no mention of princes | Verified (Gairdner vi no. 994) |
| 4e | Plumpton | Oct 1483 | none | Rising only (from memory) | Unverified |
| 5a | Ricart, Bristol Kalendar | year 1483–84 (marginal addition, undatable) | K (form), R | Bristol belief that the boys were "put to scylence" in the Tower, associated with 1483–84 | Verified (Toulmin Smith p. 46) |
| 5b | London citizen, Coll. Arms MS 2M6 (Firth Green 1981) | 1483–88? | K (form), R | Names Buckingham's "vise"; earliest English naming of an agent | Unverified (text not seen) |
| 5c | Anlaby cartulary | after 1509 | K (form) | Gives 22 (or 26) June 1483 as Edward V's death; too late and inconsistent | Unverified (text not seen) |
| 5d | Colchester Oath Book f.107r | c. 29 Sept 1483 | none (ambiguous "nuper") | Edward V "late son" of Edward IV — legal or physical? Cannot bear death | Verified (Ashdown-Hill transcription) |
| 5e | Great Chronicle of London | c. 1512 | R, (P mild) | Boys seen "shooting and playing" in the Tower garden in mayoral year to Oct 1483; rumours of death "after Easter"; three rumoured methods; Tyrell "reported" | Unverified (modernised secondary quotation) |
| 5f | Fabyan, *New Chronicles* | before 1513; printed 1516 | R, (P mild) | Boys "neuer came abrode after" being put in the Tower; "common fame" of secret death as cause of Buckingham's plot | Verified (Ellis 1811 c. pp. 669–670; 1559 ed.) |
| 5g | Rous, *Historia Regum Angliae* | 1486–91 | K (form), P (Tudor dedication) | Asserts killing "within about three months or a little more" of May 1483; admits manner "known to very few"; author far from London, unreliable | Verified (Hearne 1745 pp. 214–216) |
| 5h | Cely memorandum | c. 13–26 June 1483 | R (fear) | Fear for Edward V's life in mid-June 1483; contains false items | Verified (Malden no. 114 pp. 132–133) |
| 6a | Commynes, *Mémoires* | 1489–98 (Bk VI c. 1490–91) | K (form), P (French court) | French court held the boys dead by Aug 1483 (if anecdote reliable); agent given as Richard in Bks I, V and as Buckingham in Bk VI | Verified (Mandrot i 59, 455; ii 64–65) |
| 6b | Molinet, *Chroniques* | 1490s–1500s | R, K (form), P (Burgundian) | "About five weeks" prisoners; two rumoured methods; Buckingham suspected; bodies later "recovered" — garbled | Verified (Buchon ii 400–403) |
| 6c | *Divisiekroniek* | printed 1517 | R (three versions), P (pro-Warbeck milieu) | Gloucester smothered/starved them; or Buckingham killed them; or Buckingham killed one and Richard escaped as "the White Rose" | Verified (DBNL fol. 392r–v) |
| 6d | Weinreich, Danzig chronicle | entry under 1483 (date of writing uncertain) | K (form), R (merchant news) | Hanseatic news that Richard "had his brother's children killed" in summer 1483; paired with false "queen put away" | Verified (Visser-Fuchs 1986 p. 316) |
| 6e | Valera, letter 1 Mar 1486 / *Crónica* | 1486–87 | R ("se afirma") | Post-Bosworth merchant report in Spain; already garbled (Edward IV poisoned) | Verified (via Álvarez Prieto 2020) |
| 7a | Vergil, *Anglica Historia* xxv | draft c. 1512–13; print 1534/1555 | K (form), P (Tudor official), R (manner "non plane liquet") | Tyrell as agent on Richard's order during the 1483 progress; rumour released "within few days"; no confession, no burial place | Verified (1555 Lat.; Ellis pp. 188–189) |
| 7b | More, *History of Richard III* | c. 1513–18; printed 1557 | K (form), R ("such men and such means"), P (Tudor/Morton milieu) | Full Tudor-court narrative: Forest and Dighton smother; burial "at the stayre foote, metely depe"; priest removes bodies; Tyrell and Dighton "confessed" 1502; More notes "some remain yet in doubt" | Verified (Lumby 1883 pp. 80–85) |
| 8 | Attainder, Rot. Parl. vi 276 | Nov 1485 | P (Tudor government), K (generic) | "shedding of Infants blood" — unnamed, undated; no other official statement | Verified |
| 9a–b | Sandford 1677; urn 1678 | 1677–78 | none (identification by presumption from More) | Two children's skeletons c. 10 ft down under a Tower stair, 17 July 1674, sifted from rubbish; identified from "Story" | Verified |
| 9c | Tanner & Wright 1935 | 1933–35 | I (More as hypothesis) | Ages c. 12–13 and 9–11 from teeth/bones; alleged consanguinity and "stain"; no sexing, no dating | Unverified (summarised) |
| 9d | Hammond & White 1986 etc. | 1955–87 | — | Ages, sex, kinship, antiquity and cause of death all unestablished | Unverified (summarised) |
| 9e | DNA / C14 status | to Mar 2026 | — | Refused 1993, 1995, 2013, 2018; 2023 press reports of royal support; no test permitted as of March 2026 | Web sources (secondary) |

**Net result for the "died in 1483" case.** The only *contemporary* witnesses (Stallworth, Cely, Mancini, Weinreich, the Colchester clerk) attest, respectively, that both boys were alive on 21 June, that people feared for the king's life in mid-June, that Edward V had vanished from sight by mid-July and was suspected dead, that Hanseatic merchants reported a killing in "summer" 1483, and nothing at all. The one near-contemporary insider (Crowland) says only that a rumour of violent death "was spread" around the time of the October rising and that its manner was still unknown in 1486, but he also shows that the rising changed its aim because of it. Every statement of *fact* — Rochefort, Rous, the attainder, Commynes, Vergil, More — comes from a hostile court or from after Bosworth, and the two authors who give a method (Molinet, More) contradict each other and themselves. The physical evidence has never been dated or sexed.

---

## What I could not find or verify

1. **Mancini's Latin text** (Armstrong 1936/1969) and **Carson's 2021 translation** — both inaccessible; the Latin phrases above are from memory and must be checked, especially *sublatus* (Armstrong "done away with" vs Carson "removed").
2. **Pronay & Cox 1986** — not accessed; their rendering and page numbers are from a search summary.
3. **R. Firth Green, EHR 96 (1981)** — paywalled; the London citizen's note is known to me only as the phrase "be the vise of the Duke of Buckingham" plus a paraphrase. Full sentence, spelling, folio and Firth Green's dating argument not obtained.
4. **Anlaby cartulary** — Latin text not obtained; only C. F. Richmond's post-1509 dating (at second hand) and the two dates (22/26 June 1483, *submersum*) from a bibliography summary.
5. **Great Chronicle of London (Thomas & Thornley 1938)** — pages and original spelling of the rumours passage not obtained; only the "shooting and playing" sentence in original spelling, from a secondary web page.
6. **Colchester note** — volume and year of *Essex Archaeology and History* not confirmed (believed 28, 1997); the manuscript itself not seen.
7. **Vergil 1534 Basel edition** — I used the 1555 text; the 1534 wording of this chapter is assumed identical but not checked.
8. **More's Latin text (Louvain 1565)** — not accessed.
9. **Molinet ed. Doutrepont & Jodogne** and **Commynes ed. Calmette** — pagination not obtained; Buchon and Mandrot used instead.
10. **Weinreich in Hirsch & Vossberg 1855** and **Jan Allertsz's Dutch** — not accessed; quoted from Visser-Fuchs.
11. **Valera** — Balenchana 1878 and Carriazo 1927 not accessed; Spanish quoted from a 2020 thesis.
12. **Plumpton Correspondence** — not checked.
13. **Tanner & Wright 1935** — inaccessible; findings from Hammond and the Richard III Society; **Knight's own manuscript account** of 1674 not seen.
14. **Hammond & White 1986 page numbers; Molleson 1987** — from memory/secondary.
15. **Thornton, *History* 106 (2021) and the 2026 "Miles Forrest, regicide" article** — full texts not accessed.
16. **Official Westminster Abbey statements of 2013 and 2018** and any 2026 development on DNA/radiocarbon testing after March 2026 — only secondary web reports; a final check for April–September 2026 news was not made.
17. **Any documentary record of the Rennes oath** (as opposed to the narrative accounts) — none found; I cannot say none exists.