History is usually written by the winners, but sometimes the losers leave behind a mess so big that we're still arguing about it five centuries later. If you've ever fallen down a Wikipedia rabbit hole at 3 a.m., you’ve probably seen the names Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. They are the prince siblings who died—or allegedly died—under circumstances so shady they make modern political scandals look like a playground dispute.
It was 1483. King Edward IV had just died, leaving his twelve-year-old son, Edward V, as the heir. But being a kid king in 15th-century England was basically a death sentence. Within weeks, their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had the boys moved to the Tower of London. He said it was for their "protection" before the coronation.
The coronation never happened.
Instead, Richard declared his nephews illegitimate, took the throne for himself as Richard III, and the boys were never seen again. People have spent 500 years trying to find out where they went. Honestly, the more you look into the "Princes in the Tower," the more you realize that most of what we think we know is actually Shakespearean propaganda or Victorian guesswork.
Why the Story of the Prince Siblings Who Died Still Haunts Us
Most people think this is an open-and-shut case of a greedy uncle murdering his nephews to keep a crown. But it's rarely that simple. Historians like Philippa Langley—the woman who literally found Richard III’s body in a parking lot—have spent years challenging the "Evil Uncle" narrative.
Back in the day, the Tower of London wasn't just a prison; it was a royal residence. So, seeing the boys there at first wasn't weird. But by the summer of 1483, sightings of them playing in the garden became fewer and fewer. Then they stopped. Rumors started flying around Europe that they were dead. If you were a king in the middle of a civil war (the Wars of the Roses), having two legitimate heirs breathing down your neck was a liability.
There's this guy named Sir James Tyrrell. He’s often the one blamed for the actual deed. According to a later "confession" mentioned by Sir Thomas More, Tyrrell smothered them with pillows. But here's the kicker: Thomas More was writing under the Tudor regime. The Tudors hated Richard III. They needed him to be a monster to justify why Henry VII took the throne by force.
🔗 Read more: When is the Next Hurricane Coming 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
When you look at the prince siblings who died, you have to separate the Tudor spin from the actual paper trail. And the paper trail is incredibly thin. There’s no death certificate. No funeral. No public announcement. They just... vanished.
The Bone Discovery of 1674: Solving the Mystery?
In 1674, some workmen were tearing down a staircase in the White Tower. About ten feet down, they found a wooden chest. Inside? Two small skeletons.
King Charles II was convinced these were the remains of the prince siblings who died in the 1480s. He had them moved to Westminster Abbey and buried in a fancy urn. Case closed, right? Not really. In 1933, they actually opened the urn to do a forensic exam. The tech back then was primitive. They couldn't even tell the gender of the bones for sure, let alone the exact age or cause of death.
Some experts today are begging the Church of England to allow DNA testing. So far? The answer is a firm no.
The Church is protective of the "royal rest." But without carbon dating or DNA, we can't even prove those bones are from the 15th century. They could be Roman. They could be Saxon. They could be two random kids who fell into a hole during construction. This lack of scientific certainty is exactly why the mystery of the prince siblings who died stays fresh in the public imagination. It’s an unsolved cold case with the highest possible stakes.
Alternative Theories: Did They Actually Survive?
Imagine for a second that Richard III wasn't a child killer. If he didn't kill them, what happened?
💡 You might also like: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
Some people think they were smuggled out. There was a guy named Perkin Warbeck who showed up years later claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger prince. He actually got a fair amount of support from European royalty who claimed they recognized him. He was eventually executed by Henry VII, but his story makes you wonder. If you're a mother like Elizabeth Woodville, you'd do anything to get your kids out of that Tower.
Then there’s the "Margery" theory. Some researchers suggest the boys were sent to live in rural England under fake names. It sounds like a movie plot, but in a world without photos or fingerprints, it wouldn't be that hard to hide a royal kid in plain sight if the right people were paid off.
The Margaret Pole Connection
Margaret Pole was the boys' cousin. Her life was a wreck because of her royal blood. Her family was targeted for decades. This shows how dangerous it was to be related to the crown. If the prince siblings who died actually had survived, they would have lived their lives in constant, paralyzing fear.
Examining the Evidence Against Richard III
We can't ignore the motive. Richard III had the most to gain.
- The Titulus Regius: This was the document that declared the princes illegitimate because their father’s marriage was supposedly invalid. It gave Richard a legal "right" to the throne.
- The Silence: If the boys died of natural causes (like the sweating sickness or a respiratory infection), why didn't Richard just show the bodies? Usually, when a royal died, you displayed the body to prove there wasn't a conspiracy.
- The Disappearance of Their Mother: Elizabeth Woodville eventually left sanctuary and seemed to make peace with Richard. Would a mother do that if she knew he had murdered her sons? It’s a huge red flag in the "murderer" theory.
Maybe he didn't do it. Maybe it was Henry VII? Henry arrived at the end of the war. If the boys were still alive in the Tower when he took over, they were a threat to his new reign too. Killing them and blaming the dead guy (Richard) would be the ultimate power move.
How to Explore This History Yourself
If you're fascinated by the prince siblings who died, don't just take a historian's word for it. You can actually look at the primary sources.
📖 Related: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
First, look up the "Croyland Chronicle." It’s one of the few contemporary sources written while this was all happening. It’s biased, sure, but it gives you the "vibe" of the era. People were terrified and confused.
Second, visit the Tower of London. Standing at the base of the Bloody Tower—which got its name specifically because of this story—makes the history feel heavy. You can see the narrow windows and the thick stone walls and realize just how easy it would be for two kids to get lost in the system.
Third, check out the Richard III Society. They are a group dedicated to clearing Richard's name. They have some pretty compelling arguments about why he might have been framed. Even if you don't agree with them, their research into the logistics of the 1480s is top-tier.
The reality of the prince siblings who died is that we might never have a "smoking gun." Unless the Church of England changes its mind about those bones in Westminster Abbey, we are stuck with circumstantial evidence and old rumors. But that’s the beauty of it. It’s a puzzle with missing pieces that allows every generation to project its own fears and politics onto the past.
To dig deeper into the actual documents, look for the 1483 "Parliamentary Rolls." These are the official records of Richard taking the throne. Reading the dry, legal language used to shove two children aside is chilling. It reminds you that history isn't just about battles; it's about the quiet, bureaucratic ways that people in power get rid of those who stand in their way.
Actionable Steps for History Enthusiasts
- Read "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. It's a detective novel, but it's famous for breaking down the case against Richard III in a way that’s easy to follow.
- Search the UK National Archives online. They have digitized versions of many 15th-century documents.
- Follow the "Missing Princes Project." This is an active, modern investigation using cold-case forensic techniques to track down what happened to the boys.
- Compare the Tudor accounts with the Italian accounts. Dominic Mancini was an Italian priest in London in 1483. His report is one of the most "neutral" things we have, and he describes the boys' disappearance with genuine dread.
The mystery of the prince siblings who died isn't just a ghost story. It’s a lesson in how easily the truth can be buried under layers of politics and time. Keep questioning the "official" version of events—usually, there's a much messier truth hiding underneath.