The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth Paperback – 14 Dec. 2023

‘The Survival of the Princes in the Tower’ offers a rational investigation of the contemporary and near-contemporary sources to discover the real story of what happened to the sons of Edward IV, reportedly last seen alive in the Tower of London in the summer or autumn of 1483. In the book Matthew Lewis draws together the disparate, often fragmentary and sometimes even contradictory records from the 1480s onwards that may shed light on the fates of the two boys.I have to admit that when I first saw the cover of the book, my heart sank. There are, to be fair, very few contemporary fifteenth-century depictions of the two boys, Edward and Richard, but I know I’m not the only person wearied by the continual use of a nineteenth-century painting of two blond-tressed angelic little boys cowering in fear at the prospect of being murdered by their evil uncle. However, it is one of the best-known depictions and when my hardback copy of the book arrived, I was struck by the way that yellow hair is echoed in the yellow lettering of the title on its black background – and the way it makes the pivotal word ‘Survival’ stand out. For that is what careful consideration of all the available early sources – and investigation of their manipulation in subsequent years – leads to: the conclusion that both boys survived – beyond that turbulent summer of 1483, beyond the failed rebellion in October of that year, beyond the dramatic events of August 1485.As Lewis states throughout, it’s what is not said or done that is often most telling in this tale. He dubs it the ‘black hole effect’ – while the boys themselves may not be obvious to our sight after 1483, perhaps their gravitational pull on the actions or inactions of other people may indicate their whereabouts or give rise to suspicions of their presence. Why did Henry Tudor not trumpet the guilt of his predecessor if it was so well known that King Richard had had the boys murdered? Why did Elizabeth Woodville never accuse her brother-in-law of her sons’ murder, even after his death when she was safe from any possible repercussions? Why didn’t her daughter, Elizabeth of York, deplore it either, even after her marriage to Henry? (The younger Elizabeth famously possessed a book that had belonged to Richard, inscribed with both her name and his motto – perhaps not something that would have been treasured by the sister of victims supposed to have been murdered at his hands.)Yet Lewis announces early on that his aim is not to concentrate on King Richard’s part in the story (or to clear him of any blame for a crime), but rather to focus on whether there is any evidence of any such crime occurring at all. And that is perhaps where this book particularly succeeds: it goes beyond the usual (and seemingly endless) ‘did he or didn’t he?’ debates that still swirl around Richard III to interrogate the sources of information that exist beyond 1485. What have the contemporary sources to say about the so-called ‘Lambert Simnel’ affair and the identity of the young man at its centre? (Surprisingly little, and what there is allows that the ‘pretender’ is as likely to have been called John as Lambert, and is more likely to have been a son of Edward IV called Edward than to have claimed to be the (imprisoned) Earl of Warwick.) What do the sources say about the so-called ‘Perkin Warbeck’ affair? If Henry Tudor knew that the boys had died in the Tower and had proof, even only credible oral evidence, why did these rebellions rattle him so much? Why did elaborate, frankly unbelievable stories have to be created to deflect from what both young men claimed?Lewis also explores theories of what may have happened to the boys based on art historical and other non-textual research – involving the work of Hans Holbein and the genealogies of several prominent Tudor-era families. While interesting, these represent for me something of a conceptual step too far and I prefer to focus on the discrepancies of the immediate post-Bosworth ‘history’ – of which there are many – certainly plenty to justify at the very least a healthy scepticism in relation to the ‘official’ Tudor version.Bringing together, apparently for the first time in a single book, so many of the available sources of information on the possible outcomes for King Edward’s sons, Lewis may not have solved the centuries-old mystery (indeed, it seems, that was not his intention), but he has provided a valuable resource for anyone fascinated by this complex and intriguing period of medieval/early modern English history. And hopefully will open a few people’s eyes to an alternative interpretation from that to which Henry Tudor and his adherents would like to direct us.

As someone who has always believed the official history which says that the two boys, King Edward V and Richard Duke of York were murdered in the Tower of London by a person or persons acting on behalf of their wicked uncle, King Richard III, this book came as a shock.The author, Matthew Lewis, sets out a plausible revisionist case in favour of the argument that both princes survived, lived on well into the 16th century in relative anonymity as Edward Guildford and John Clements, and that neither Richard III nor Henvy VII ever wanted them dead. He even goes as far as to suggest that at least one of the "imposters" who claimed and tried to take the English throne from Henvy VII might have been the genuine article, particularly as as they managed to convince several European monarchs of their authenticity.While I still have a hunch that Richard III was guilty of ordering their deaths this version of history is obviously well-researched and is interesting to read. I would recommend it to keen, budding historians as it covers a mystery which has fascinated for centuries and anything which makes you question blindly-accepted beliefs is no bad thing.The solution to the puzzle might be an archeological find, such as the one that unearthed Richard III under a car park but for the moment I suspect that this question remains unsolved

I bought this book because I've always been fascinated by the mystery of the Princes in the Tower and at the same time an ardent Ricardian. I've always thought poor old Richard III was a victim of a dastardly smear campaign by the Tudors and in particular by Henry VII and his cronies. So it was a delight to read a book that offered up some other theories as to what really happened, even if some of them might be classified as farfetched.I love a conspiracy theory and the possibility that either one or both of the boys survived to adulthood was well researched. The book offers up several different theories and at the same time offers evidence that Richard probably didn't kill them or order them killed. That pleased me no end.I was particularly enamoured of one of the more outlandish theories about Robert Dudley and Queen Elizabeth I. Such fun if that were really true.I read bits of this out aloud to my husband as he too is a Ricardian, and I'm almost tempted to buy him the paperback version (I read this on my kindle) so he can read all the theories as well. I just might do that.Thank you very much to the author for a well-researched book and not being afraid to tackle all the different theories as to what might have happened to the boys.What we really need now is a definitive DNA test on the two skeletons discovered in that staircase at the Tower of London. If I were King Charles, I'd be dying to know the answer. I can't understand why the Royal Family won't allow a proper investigation to be done, as if it were proven that the skeletons belonged to Plantagenet children then we would have to once and for all agree that Richard, or possibly Henry or his mother Margaret Beaufort, engineered their deaths. But if they are NOT Plantagenets (and we have their DNA as it was sourced for Richard III their uncle) then we can put that theory to bed.

I heard about this book on a FB Group I am part of that shares interest in this topic, as researching the Princes in the Tower is somewhat of a hobby for me. I had heard of Lewis, but hadn't read any of his books yet, and am glad I have now been introduced to this author/historian, since I really like his writing style. Some may say it could be considered an advanced read, but it's not totally over the head of a novice. I actually have previously gone through and read a lot of the contemporary primary sources on BHO, e.g. state correspondences, calendar rolls, etc., especially as it pertains to Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, and Perkin Warbeck so was curious to see if he would just be summarizing a lot of what has already been written about, or if he would bring up new clues, and I was not disappointed, he delves into both, and puts forth a couple new theories on the information already known about, but also uncovers a lot of interesting clues drawn from sources, that would have otherwise previously been thought to be more innocuous or unrelated, that I either had never seen before, or that I may have previously overlooked, and now must take a second look at, due to him being able to draw interesting connections. So I really like how this book both covers the major information already known and discussed by historians, but also delves into different angles on them, and offers up so many new clues that really haven't previously been explored or connected up to the case of the missing princes. I also like that he touches on them enough to raise to our attention but doesn't then go down a rabbit hole too much, and always maintains a very objective and critical view of the clues, so is clear he's not the type of investigator that would be pulled into a wild goose chase, but willing to investigate all clues, and not ignore them. Other than the possibility of their survival, he also doesn't commit to one theory, but just lets the reader think about it, and put it in a way that's easy to read, and tantalizing enough to make you want to look more into some of these clues. Lewis's presentation is like a mix of Sherlock Holmes and a historian, and I read the whole book in one weekend. I would highly recommend it to anybody who is interested in this topic. I could see how if you're not already aware of all the characters, it may seem a little overwhelming to some, but Lewis does give short backgrounds to the characters, but was perfect for me, as I was not looking for a remedial overview, since I do not need that, since I knew all the characters, but refreshed my memory on some of the lesser known ones. In other words, I could see how somebody without a lot of background knowledge about this mystery would be able to get a good enough general overview to understand and be drawn into a good mystery, whilst also being a fantastic secondary source for more advanced readers on this topic who are looking for more primary sources to draw from. Overall, I loved it, both as an informational source, and it was also very enjoyable to read.

Es un excelente libro de investigación histórica, muestra amplia experiencia del autor en la interpretación y comprensión de documentos de la época

If you're intrigued by English history of the late 15th century and specifically this still unsolved mystery, do not miss this excellent book researching all so far uncovered clues both about the supposed murder of the two sons of Edward IV and also about the increasingly strong possibility of their survival, their involvement in the two major uprisings against Henry VII, and their subsequent murder by him.I've been interested in the story of Richard III for many years, ever since I saw Sir Laurence Olivier's Henry V and Richard III (among his other films) in the late 1970's. I followed that up with Paul Murray Kendall's magnificent biography King Richard The Third (who put the princes' murders not in the main book, but in an epilogue because he couldn't find enough information in 1955 when he first wrote his book). After reading that in the early 1980's, I stumbled upon Sharon Kay Penman's first historical novel, The Sunne in Splendour, which paints a positive picture of Richard III. Since then I've read many books on the subject of Richard III, not novels but those written by various historians, both about Richard III, about the princes' murder mystery and about the two rebellions against Henry VII which figure importantly in Matthew Lewis' book.One reason why I think this book is so important has to do with my professional background. I'm a retired senior Canadian army intelligence officer, and I was particularly attracted to this book because, knowingly or accidentally, the author uses intelligence analysis techniques to examine what happened and what may have motivated the major players from Richard III and those in powerful positions in England up to 1485, those around Henry VII from 1485 to his death in 1509, and equally, or perhaps more importantly, those men and women in charge of large and smaller countries on the continent and in Ireland and Scotland during the uprisings against Henry VII by "Lambert Simnel" and "Perkin Warbeck". The book examines the facts, as they are known today, and the likely motivations of the major players. The motivations are not examined from a 21st century point of view, a trap that quite a few writers have fallen into, but from a dispassionate look at what was going on politically on the continent (Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Burgundy), in Ireland (ruled by England), and Scotland (which England was still trying to conquer.)There is something else that interests me greatly, another mystery, that is getting more attention today than in the past. I was reminded of it right at the beginning of this book in Chapter 1, To Construct a Murder. Matthew Lewis starts off by quoting from Shakespeare's Richard III and then says that he may not have been writing about Richard III at all but rather Robert Cecil (who, unlike Richard III, was a hunchback), son of William Cecil, who between the two of them effectively ruled England for Elizabeth I. The mystery I'm talking about, as yet not totally solved, is who was the author of the plays and sonnets published in the name of William Shakespeare? Interestingly, the most likely candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who as a child was placed in the household of the Cecils, who thus had access to all his money and holdings. He was known to be a writer and supporter of the arts as an adult, but as someone close to the crown could not use his own name to publish his work. (I got interested in this before the movie "Anonymous", just in case you're tempted to say that, lol)Anyway, that mystery is incidental to the mystery of what happened to the sons of Edward IV. Did they survive Richard III? Were they involved in the principal uprisings against Henry VII? Did Henry VII kill them? Read this book with an open mind and then decide (if you can).

Una verdadera maravilla de libro sobre uno de los mayores misterios de la historia de Inglaterra. Lewis escribe con gran conocimiento sobre la época y desentraña lo que puede haber de cierto y lo que no en las diferentes crónicas que se escribieron sobre el destino de los dos hijos de Eduardo IV incidiendo en la posibilidad de que no murieran en la Torre como se cree generalmente. Con especial estudio de las figuras de Lambert Simnel y Perkin Warbeck y los indicios de que ambos pudieran ser los príncipes desaparecidos. Una lectura muy recomendable.

Shakespeare has a LOT to answer for.