If you stand on Tower Hill today, the Tower of London looks like a postcard. It’s all beefeaters, shiny crowns, and tourists eating overpriced fudge. But in the summer of 1483, this place was a literal pressure cooker. It wasn't just a palace or a fortress; it was the setting for the most cold-blooded power grab in British history.
The year 1483 changed everything.
Edward IV was dead. Suddenly. He was only 40, and he hadn't exactly planned for a messy succession. He left behind a twelve-year-old son, Edward V, and a younger boy, Richard of Shrewsbury. What followed wasn't just a political shuffle. It was a disappearance that still haunts the stone walls of the Bloody Tower centuries later. Honestly, if you want to understand why the English monarchy is so obsessed with "heir and a spare" logic, you have to look at the Tower of London 1483.
The Coronation That Never Was
The story usually starts with the boys' uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. History—mostly thanks to Shakespeare and some very effective Tudor propaganda—remembers him as a hunchbacked villain. Reality is way more complicated. Richard was a loyal brother to the late king. But when Edward IV died, the court split into two vicious camps: the Woodvilles (the Queen’s family) and the old-guard nobility who hated them.
Richard intercepted the young King Edward V on his way to London. It wasn't a kidnapping, technically. He was the "Protector." He escorted the boy to the Tower. Back then, that was normal. The Tower was a royal residence. It’s where kings stayed before their coronation.
By June, the younger brother joined him.
✨ Don't miss: Map Kansas City Missouri: What Most People Get Wrong
Then things got weird. A priest named Ralph Shaa stood up at Paul’s Cross and dropped a bombshell: he claimed Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid. Why? Because the King had allegedly been "pre-contracted" to another woman, Lady Eleanor Butler. If the marriage was a sham, the kids were illegitimate. In 1483, "bastards" couldn't wear the crown.
The Disappearance in the Tower of London 1483
Richard became Richard III. The boys? They were seen less and less.
Initially, they were spotted playing in the garden. Shooting bows. Laughing. Then, they were moved into the inner apartments. By the end of the summer, the windows were barred. Chroniclers like Dominic Mancini, an Italian priest visiting London at the time, noted the city was whispering. People were scared. Mancini wrote that the boys were withdrawn into the "inner rooms" and seen "day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, until at length they ceased to appear altogether."
It’s chilling.
Imagine being those kids. One day you're the most powerful person in England, the next, you're a prisoner in your own home. There are no diary entries. No "last letters." Just silence. That silence is why the Tower of London 1483 remains the ultimate cold case.
🔗 Read more: Leonardo da Vinci Grave: The Messy Truth About Where the Genius Really Lies
The Bones Under the Stairs
Fast forward to 1674. Laborers were demolishing a staircase leading to the chapel in the White Tower. They found a wooden chest. Inside? The skeletons of two children.
Charles II, assuming they were the lost princes, had them moved to Westminster Abbey. But here’s the kicker: we don’t actually know if they are the princes. In the 1930s, the bones were examined. The technology was primitive. They confirmed they were children of the right ages, but DNA wasn't a thing yet. The Church of England has consistently refused to allow modern forensic testing or carbon dating on those remains.
So, they sit there. Maybe the princes. Maybe not.
Who Actually Did It?
If you ask a historian like Philippa Langley—who famously spearheaded the search for Richard III’s body in a Leicester car park—she’ll tell you Richard might be innocent. Or at least, there’s no "smoking gun."
- Richard III: He had the most to gain. Dead nephews don't lead rebellions.
- The Duke of Buckingham: He was Richard’s right-hand man until he turned traitor. Some think he killed them to discredit Richard or to clear his own path to the throne.
- Henry VII: He’s the dark horse. He won the crown at Bosworth in 1485. If the boys were still alive in the Tower when he arrived, he would have needed them gone to secure his own shaky claim.
Most experts, including the late Sir Thomas More (who wrote a very biased history), point the finger at Sir James Tyrrell. The story goes that Tyrrell was sent by Richard to smother the boys with pillows while they slept. It’s a vivid, terrifying image. But Tyrrell’s "confession" didn't happen until years later, under torture. You can't exactly take that to the bank.
💡 You might also like: Johnny's Reef on City Island: What People Get Wrong About the Bronx’s Iconic Seafood Spot
Why This Matters Today
The events at the Tower of London 1483 basically broke the Plantagenet dynasty. It ushered in the Tudors—Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, the whole lot. If those boys had lived, the Reformation might never have happened. The map of Europe might look completely different.
The Tower isn't just a museum; it's a crime scene. When you visit, you can feel the weight of it. The "Bloody Tower" got its name specifically because of this event.
Honestly, the lack of a body is what keeps the legend alive. In the late 1400s, "Pretenders" started popping up. Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck claimed to be the younger prince, Richard. Warbeck actually gained a lot of support from European royalty who were convinced he was the real deal. It shows that even at the time, nobody was 100% sure what happened behind those stone walls.
Practical Steps for History Buffs
If you're planning to visit or want to dive deeper into the mystery of 1483, don't just read a textbook.
- Visit the White Tower: Go to the spot where the bones were found in 1674. It’s near the St. John’s Chapel entrance. It puts the scale of the building into perspective.
- Read the Primary Sources: Look up Dominic Mancini’s The Usurpation of Richard III. He was there in London while it was happening. His account is the closest thing we have to a "live report."
- Check the "Richard III Society": They offer a counter-perspective to the "Evil Uncle" narrative. It’s worth seeing both sides of the argument.
- Look at the Portraits: Compare the portraits of Edward V and Richard III in the National Portrait Gallery. Look at the eyes. It sounds silly, but the propaganda of the era is baked into the art.
The Tower of London 1483 isn't just a date in a history book. It’s a story about what happens when power, fear, and family collide. Whether they were murdered by their uncle, escaped to Europe, or died of illness, the mystery remains the most compelling ghost story in London’s long, bloody history.
Actionable Insight: When you visit the Tower, book the "Yeoman Warder" tour, but ask them specifically about the 1933 bone examination. Most guides have "off-script" details about the different theories that didn't make it into the official brochures. Focus your research on the "Pre-contract" argument (Titulus Regius) to understand the legal loophole Richard used to take the throne. This legal document is the key to why he felt justified—or why he felt he had to hide the boys forever.