Have we finally unmasked the killer of the Princes in the Tower?

Previous attempts to resolve the mystery have focused on the period leading up to the moment the princes vanished after being moved to the Tower of London by Richard III. For most historians, the summer of 1483 – when they disappeared from view – is when this story ends. But five or six years ago, I began to look at the case through a different lens – to see that summer not as where the story ends, but where it begins.

One of the key sources we have on the disappearance is a detailed account written around 30 years later by Thomas More. He will be a familiar name to people interested in the Tudor era, and his account is the first that identifies how the deed was done and who was to blame. More claims that two individuals – Miles Forest and John Dighton – carried out the murder for an agent of Richard III called Sir James Tyrrell.

When I began looking at More’s account, I was working against a background of very great scepticism about his story. Many people believed it was a simple exercise in propaganda on behalf of the Tudors – Richard’s enemies who were on the throne at the time. Other people have suggested that More was more interested in literary flair and political philosophy than historical accuracy; he was writing an abstract account of how a country can fall into tyranny.

But a couple of years ago, I produced a paper which suggested that, far from being imaginary individuals or random characters drawn into the story willy-nilly by More, Miles Forest and John Dighton were real people. Most compellingly, I found that when Thomas More was likely preparing his account of this period, he was on embassy in Bruges. And the man carrying messages from that embassy back to England was one Miles Forest – son of the man More implicated in the murders, who shared his name. There is even a 1515 letter that has Thomas More’s signature at the foot, and Miles Forest’s name at the head. Now that is an extraordinary connection.

More’s story had previously been dismissed as propaganda or abstract literature. But my research started to connect More very directly to people who’d been around at the time of the disappearance of the princes.

Tell us about your recent discovery and what it adds to this picture

TT: One of the things that makes this story so compelling is that the princes really did disappear without a trace. Until the discovery of bones in 1674, there were no meaningful traces of the boys. No clothing is reputed to survive from them, nor any weapons, jewellery or other possessions.

But I’ve discovered a will from 1516 – around the time that Thomas More was writing – which mentions a gold chain that belonged to Edward V, the elder of the two princes. In this period, chains were very valuable and significant items. They would be made of precious metal and jewels, and usually incorporated badges or symbols to express the owner’s identity and loyalties.

What makes this really exciting is who the chain belonged to. The will shows that the chain was in the hands of Lady Margaret Capell – a wealthy and influential woman, and widow of a former Lord Mayor of London. But most significantly, Margaret was also the sister-in-law of Sir James Tyrrell, the man identified by Thomas More as the orchestrator of the princes’ murder.

Can you tell us more about Sir James Tyrrell?

Tracy Borman: For many years Tyrrell has been seen as a bit of a pantomime villain. But first and foremost, he was Richard III’s right-hand man – an enforcer, if you like. He had a military background and was an influential figure at court. What also comes across very clearly from the records is that he was a man of ambition, but also intense loyalty.

The other notable thing about Tyrrell is that he was later implicated in a treasonous plot against the Tudors and placed in the Tower. And according to More, during his imprisonment, Tyrrell actually confessed to the murders of the princes.

One explanation for this new discovery could be that Tyrrell had the princes killed, took Edward’s chain and passed it on to his relative. But are there any other explanations for how this chain could have ended up in his sister-in-law’s possession?

TT: I absolutely acknowledge that there are other ways that this chain might have reached Margaret Capell. I think the likelihood of it simply being discarded somewhere and then picked up by the Capells is very small. But it’s entirely credible that the princes’ possessions were dispersed in a more neutral way. It might have been that, in the aftermath of Edward V’s deposition, his most valuable possessions were sold off to wealthy Londoners like Margaret’s husband, Sir William Capell.

But for me, the possession of the chain by a connection of James Tyrrell does add to the suspicions around what had happened to the boys before the chain changed hands.

It’s also worth noting that the Capells’ lawyer in the 1510s was a man called John More – the father of (you guessed it) Thomas More. So not only have we identified a physical object from the princes that survived in the hands of the sister-in-law of the man that More says organised the murders, but we’ve also established another connection with More himself.

People have spent years poring over every single detail of this case. Why do you think that nobody has come across this before?

TT: My suspicion is that, because of the scepticism around the credibility of More’s account, the incentives to explore his claims were diminished. What I’ve done is not particularly revolutionary. In exploring members of Tyrrell’s family, all I’ve done is take a closer look at the connections of one of the prime suspects.

How do you think people are going to react to this discovery? Especially those who believe Richard was not responsible for his nephews’ disappearance

TB: As someone who has followed the story of the princes so closely throughout my whole career, I would say that this is undoubtedly the most significant discovery, not just in recent years, but in my entire tenure as a historian. I haven’t heard anything more compelling in this case than Tim’s latest discovery. This is the next chapter and it’s a hugely significant one.

That said, I know how emotive this subject is. It’s a deeply divisive issue. Richard still has an army of loyal supporters today, who may question this discovery and stick with their original beliefs. I have always kept an open mind on this, but it’s a shame that there are these two camps and you can’t just be somewhere in the middle. I’m chief curator at Historic Royal Palaces, and we will absolutely continue to encourage visitors to the Tower of London to make up their own minds about what happened. But for me as a historian, this has really changed my perception.

TT: I absolutely respect the views of those who passionately defend Richard. I understand why they do it. But I think this is a good test case for the way that historians work.

One of the things that people often say to me is that we have not proven this case beyond reasonable doubt. They apply the same standards of proof that you would expect in a court of law today. But as historians, I think we need to try and explain that when you’re working on a topic like this, it’s almost impossible to achieve levels of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I think the balance of probabilities is shifting quite significantly to suggest that Richard III was responsible for the boys’ deaths

We can’t interview suspects. We can’t undertake forensic investigations at crime scenes. We have to work with the limited body of evidence that remains. What historians must do instead is to work on a balance of probabilities, and I think that’s entirely reasonable. It recognises that, on most historical topics, we almost inevitably have imperfect evidence.

Why is there so little evidence to draw on in this case?

TT: There were a lot of people at the time and immediately afterwards who didn’t want there to be any evidence of the events in question. You’ve got to remember that Tudor England was full of people who were deeply compromised by their involvement in horrific crimes in the previous decades of civil conflict. I draw parallels with Europe after 1945. And in situations like that, there isn’t always an incentive for people to pick over the past in huge detail.

The Princes in the Tower: A Medieval Murder Mystery

Member exclusive | Browse and listen to all episodes in our podcast series which delves into the medieval murder mystery of the Princes in the Tower.

Listen to all episodes now

So where do you think this latest discovery leaves us?

TT: I think the balance of probabilities is shifting quite significantly to suggest that Richard was responsible for the boys’ deaths, and that we have likely murderers in Tyrrell, Forest and Dighton.

TB: I agree. When added up with the other elements of this case, I think that Tim’s research – particularly this latest discovery – brings us quite significantly closer to what really happened to the princes in the Tower.

Tracy Borman is an author and chief curator of Historic Royal Palaces. Tim Thornton is professor of history and deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Huddersfield. Read his new research in full

Tim Thornton has revealed his discoveries in a Channel 5 documentary, Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery. Catch up with that on My5