The Princes in the Tower: England’s Most Famous Cold Case and the Suspects Who Never Got a Trial

In the summer of 1483, two boys were living in the Tower of London. Edward was 12. His brother Richard was 9. They were the sons of the recently deceased King Edward IV, which made Edward the rightful King of England, uncrowned but legitimate. Guards allowed them to play in the Tower gardens. Visitors came. Then, sometime in the autumn of 1483, they stopped being seen by anyone. No one saw them leave. No bodies turned up. And no announcement was ever made. They just ceased to appear. 540 years later, nobody knows what happened to them.

What We Know

Edward IV died unexpectedly in April 1483. His brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was named Lord Protector of the realm until Edward’s son came of age. Richard moved the boys into the Tower, officially for their protection and to prepare for the coronation. Preparations for Edward V’s coronation were underway: coins were being minted, a date was set.

Then Richard declared the boys illegitimate, citing a claim that their father had been previously betrothed to another woman before marrying their mother. Parliament passed an act called Titulus Regius formalizing the illegitimacy. Richard was crowned King Richard III on July 6, 1483. The boys remained in the Tower.

By autumn of 1483, rumors were spreading through London and France that the princes were dead. The French Lord Chancellor mentioned their fate in a speech to the Estates General that January, urging caution about their own young king. Richard III never publicly denied it. He never produced the boys to show they were alive. He never opened an investigation. These omissions are the closest thing to evidence the case has.

The Suspects

Richard III is the obvious primary suspect and has been since 1483. He had the motive: the boys were potential figureheads for rebellion as long as they lived, and his hold on power was shaky. He had the means: the Tower was under his control. His failure to produce the boys publicly when rumors of their deaths were circulating internationally looks, to most historians, like a man who knew they were dead because he had arranged it.

The case against Richard was written up in detail by Sir Thomas More about 50 years after the events. More named a knight named James Tyrell as the organizer, with two hired men smothering the boys with pillows. In 1502, Tyrell was executed for an unrelated offense and allegedly confessed to the murders. The confession was never published and has not survived. More’s account forms the basis of Shakespeare’s Richard III, which is where most people’s image of the case comes from.

Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, is the second most credible suspect. He was Richard’s key ally in the coup that took the throne but then rebelled against Richard in October 1483, which is exactly when the rumors of the boys’ deaths were spreading. A contemporary Portuguese document specifically names Buckingham as having custody of the boys at the relevant time.

Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII after defeating Richard at Bosworth Field in 1485, also had motive: the dead princes were his wife’s brothers, and her right to be queen was stronger with them out of the way. However, most historians find the evidence against Henry unconvincing.

The Bones in the Tower

In 1674, workmen rebuilding a stairway in the Tower dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. They were widely assumed to be the princes. King Charles II had them interred in Westminster Abbey, where they remain.

In 1933, physicians examined the bones and concluded they were consistent in age with the two princes. Their report considered the identification essentially confirmed. Since then, the assessment has been contested repeatedly. The bones have never been subjected to modern DNA analysis. A request to exhume them for testing was denied by the Crown in 2023, with the decision under ongoing review. Until a DNA test is done and compared against living descendants of the royal family from that period, the identification remains unproven.

The exhumation question has become its own political and cultural controversy. The Richard III Society, which has spent decades rehabilitating Richard’s reputation, advocates strongly for testing. Others argue that disturbing a royal burial site requires stronger justification than a 540-year-old cold case.