I'll be honest, I don't know much about this particular period of English history, but it sounds like if you find the answers to all these questions, then you might also find out if Anna Anderson was truly Grand Duchess Anastasia!!  😀

Whoever ordered the murders of the princes, I doubt that allowing one or the other to survive would have been high on the assassin's priorities.

I don't think Warbeck was Richard. However I agree with Sharon that there were plenty of people who were prepared to use him to gain power, directly or not.

David said:

My question is:

Was Perkin Warbeck really Prince Richard, who would have been Richard IV of England….was King Henry VII the person who killed Perkin Warbeck because she knew he was who he said he was?  If this is true, then did she have a child killed and placed in the burial site at the twoer with Edward V in order to make it look like both were buried there?  And finally, did the wife and child of Perkin Warbeck move to England and live with the royal family?  I would appreciate any and all comments regarding this subject…..

I highly doubt it. The only people who supported the pretender were the bitter enemies of King Henry VII, out to destabilise his regime. Everything Warbeck did ended in miserable failure, and really he was just a little bit desperate.

I highly doubt that Henry VII had anything to do with their deaths in person, as he was in exile in Brittany at that time. OP, you're referring to a “she” there, do you mean Margaret Beaufort? If so, I find it highly unlikely that she had anything to do with it, either. She was very well acquainted with the line of succession; therefore, what did she really have to gain by killing two children, when she knew full well that that would merely put Richard of Gloucester on the throne, and not her son?

Personally, I am satisfied that Richard did indeed kill his nephews. I know that he passed the Titulus Regius, and made them illegitimate. However, acts of Parliament can be reversed in a trice, especially in those turbulent times. He must have known that no matter what dubious legislation he put through Parliament, those boys would one day grow into men, and be able to raise an army and take him on in the battle field to reclaim what was rightfully theirs. He still, IMO, had all to gain from their deaths, rather than their neutralisation.

Also, I doubt that Richard would have allowed either of the children to simply escape his clutches. But, I also find Elizabeth Wydeville relinquishing Richard of Shrewsbury into Richard's hands hard to fathom. Nevertheless, it seems that she did.

I've been watching The Shadow of the Tower and the episodes on disc 3 all deal with the Cornish rebellion of 1497 and the Perkin Warbeck attempt. I had no idea that the two were sort of interconnected (seems that when the original uprising failed, the leaders were executed, and the remainder sent home with doubled or tripled taxes, some may have taken up the cause of Warbeck in order to overthrow Henry VII).

This makes me want to read up more on the subject — I mean, I had heard of Simnel and Warbeck before and the plots centered around them, but I still don't have a lot of details which is one reason I thought I'd come here to the Forum. I figured that someone had brought up the topic as well as the story of the Princes in the Tower.

As a side note: since my knowledge of this part of Henry's reign is limited, I can't be certain how historic the miniseries is when it comes to Simnel and Warbeck, except that the former — when his episode concluded — was permitted to live (and he was a child, the approximate age of the one he was supposed to be imitating, the Earl of Warwick). Warbeck, in what I'm guessing will be his final appearance (in the episode The Strange Shapes of Reality) is shown drifting deeper and deeper into a world of his own making as he wallows away in a dark cell in the Tower. A pretend world with him as Richard IV is far better than a reality in which all those that once proclaimed him have turned their backs. I do not know if he did go mad, but I get the impression that the “French boy” (as a few of his supporters call him in private) is driven into near insanity as he loses his real identity and takes on the “character” of Richard Duke of York. He's almost pathetic, the way he's used.

Anyway, do I think Warbeck was Richard of York? I doubt it. I'm one of those that still believes Richard III had his nephews murdered, and I still ask the question that I understand many even then were asking: show Edward V and his brother to us. Had Richard done so, we would have known that at some point they were still alive and possibly his hands might not have been so dirty. (Okay, I don't believe the withered arm/hunch-back tales and I'm not sure he was the son of Lucifer as portrayed in Shakespeare. But I see him and even understand a bit of his motivation in seizing the throne. It was underhanded but I understand. But I also see him as a conniver and a liar since he was first going to have Edward IV declared illegitimate by claiming their mother wasn't legally married to their father, and when Plan A fell through he went to Plan B — have Edward's children declared illegitimate by disputing the marriage to Elizabeth Wydville. That alone damns him in my eyes, even if I see it through 15th century eyes!)

For me, Warbeck suffered from the Anastasia Syndrome before the tragic Grand Duchess ever existed. You locate someone who bares some resemblance to the royal individual believed dead; you train them; pass them off to teary-eyed companions or servants, and perhaps even convince some of the royal family too that they are who they claim to be. I've seen those interviews with Anna Anderson — who in old age seemed completely delusional — and thanks to the science of DNA, we know she was NOT Anastasia. Thanks to DNA, we know that the real girl was murdered along with her family. No stranger had taken pity on her to rescue her, just as I don't believe that the person sent to kill Edward V and Richard of York took pity on the youngest child and decided to take him into hiding. (I guess I've just seen too many evil people in my career in law enforcement to believe they had a change of heart in saving one child after killing another — I'm just cynical about many things now).

But that's my opinion.  If any of you get a chance to catch The Shadow of the Tower, some of the episodes aren't bad and some are WAY too talky, but the ones about the pretenders have been pretty interesting.

Anyanka said:

 

I really can’t see the British establishment* allowing DNA tests on the bones of the bodies that are described as the “Princes in the Tower” any more than I can see them DNA-ing the bodies in St Peter ad Vincula . Trying to find true line descendants after 480+ years is going to be very hard.

 

With the Romanovs there were viable collecteral lines from which DNA could be collected.

 

* The Queen, parliment etc.

*********************

Oh I'm realistic enough to know that the remains of the Princes will never be exhumed for DNA analysis. If it ever happens it won't be in our lifetimes. It would be nice and definitive if it did take place, but there are way too many people who would raise barriers, including many who probably just feel that the dead should be allowed to rest in peace. The crime scene tech in me wants a final answer, but I don't think we'll see it.

So this is one of those mysteries that will likely remain so.

When I mentioned Anastasia, it was just to say that Anna Anderson (and however many other imposters there were) was being used by others who sought some type of gain. It was the same with Warbeck and Simnel, where you had two individuals being trained and propped up as whichever member of the house of York the conspirators had in mind. (Not sure how factual this part was, but in the miniseries, Warbeck was first going to be declared as Richard III's illegitimate son, and then it was changed to Richard Duke of York; I guess they figured making him Edward IV's son made a tad more sense. Now he's either one or the other – not both LOL). I just hate seeing these people used for such purposes, especially if any had emotional problems.

I know it is not ‘nice to think off’ but I have always been suspicious of their own mother Elizabeth Woodville. She loved her position but knew her son was not going to be king as she had planned with herself wielding the power from behind the throne. She didn’t want to lose everything when she could get away with losing only ‘somethings’.
The agreement was made between herself and Margaret Beaufort that Henry Tudor would take the throne, marry her daughter Elizabeth of York and allow her to take up a position of some honour as the Queen’s mother. She had other daughters to make good marriages for too which was a big consideration.
I think it quite possible, in the terms of the times she lived in, her own personal desires for position/power/security expains why she allowed Richard to join Edward in the tower and that she then worked and plotted to organise their deaths. She knew neither of these boys had a chance anyway so took a pragmatic course to protect herself and her daughters. She may even have felt that it was the kindest thing left to her to do for her sons. Perhaps some poison. I can’t imagine the hows of it all but I do think it quite feasible that she was behind their ‘disappearance’. I do not subscribe to the idea that she helped one or even both boys to escape from the tower, to turn up later as claimants because from the moment she committed to her daughter being queen she had to let go of the boys in all ways and would have seen that nothing short of a total ‘clean up would protect Elizabeth’s future position or her own for that matter and that of her other daughters.

I find this to be one of the great mysteries. I can see how people can easily argue for Richard’s guilt or Henry’s guilt. But we just don’t know. Since we lack the fundamental forensic evidence (such as time of death, for example), it is all speculation. Mind, many a court case has been based on speculative evidence and some very convincing attorneys. For me, I can see both sides of the argument: Richard and Henry both had the means, methods, and opportunity to kill these boys.
I am not sold on Richard’s “Titulus Regius” as sole proof of him not killing his nephews. There were still many in England who supported Edward V, and it would not be enough to bastardise them. It would be guranteed in killing them.
However, I can see shrewd Henry wanting them killed, if they were alive. Henry had many detractors, too. With Richard dead, Edward V (even illigitimate) would mean the Yorkist had a claim.
Then again, I go back to the whole question of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. It is somewhat ironic that Edward’s grandson, Henry VIII (who apparently took after him) was to deal with his own marital woes with a vivacious, independent woman in Anne, who would also be called a witch). But, I digress. It seems Edward was popular and able King, who was a capable statesman and a brave warrior. Elizabeth Woodville was another thing. I often wonder if Richard and other Yorkists did not fear her. She was intelligent, capable, independent, and shrewd. Since Edward V was young, his mother, potentially, could wield copious amounts of power. I doubt few males could appreciate, or would allow, a mere woman to control a kingdom.
Sorry for the long post. I hope it makes some sense, but I felt the need to..vent?

All good points in the mystery. I have a problem with More’s views though. He was born in 1478 and the princes were done away with in 1483, which means that Moore was a very young boy at the time and probably wouldn’t have first hand knowledge. Also, he was writing in Tudor years and would still want to propagate the idea that Richard was evil and Henry was the savior of England. I’m not saying that Moore lied. He probably believed what he wrote, but that doesn’t make it true. Maybe Henry’s queen did suspect her husband of the murders and couldn’t/wouldn’t ask.

I can’t remember where I read about this but if I do I’ll let you all know but anyway it is one of the things which has made me seriously consider Elizabeth Woodville in the mystery of the two Princes.
Edward IV’s tomb or grave or whatever was damaged during the Cromwell years. Later when it was being restored it was found to contain the bodies of Edward, Elizabeth and two unknown children.
If I remember rightly the two skeletons found in the tower were eventually declared to be unlikely to be the two Princes.

It is quite possible and how are we ever to know the truth of it all, but it could be that the two skeletons at the tower were as sad as it is the remains of two children who died there perhaps when it was being built or just two poor beggars who were used in some way in the precincts who died whether naturally or by other means. I would imagine the tower is built on the bones of many unnamed people who have died there in those years of toil and poverty.
As to Richard and his idea of marrying Elizabeth I suppose it would have been a case of the old get a bit of paper from the Pope to say it as all AOK and there you are. I don’t think Richard would have married her though. I don’t think he had any good feelings for Elizabeth Woodville or any of the children she had. If after his wife Anne died, presuming he had held the throne, he wanted a new wife he would have looked elsewhere.
I don’t agree with you (in the nicest possible way of course ) on Buckingham. He was close to Edward IV and while he may well have wanted to kill off Richard I do not think he would have done anything other than upheld the rights of Edward’s son.
As for Henry, he was a rank outsider as far as support was concerned but he had Margaret behind him all the way and she was nothing if not determined. The battle may have been fought at Bosworth but she put her son on that throne no doubt about that.
Elizabeth Woodville was just as determined but for more personal/selfish reasons which is why I think it quite likely she took the drastic step of supporting Henry Tudor and his proposed marriage with her daughter at the expense of her son(s).
Therefore the two small skeletons discovered in the tomb she shares with her husband may well be those of her sons. She may have been able to bring herself to contribute to their deaths but would surely have also wanted their bodies to be treated well. Not slung into a hole with animal bones and other waste material.