Princes in the Tower: The Murder Mystery that Inspired Game of Thrones

Did you know that in 1483, a shadowy coup nearly brought the nation of England to its

knees? One that people still debate to this day and helped inspire Game of Thrones, I'm talking about the disappearance of the heir to the English throne and his brother, known as the Prince's in the tower, and was there out of the way their uncle took the crown instead.

“So was this murder most foul or did the Prince's somehow escape with their lives?”

To this day, nobody knows for sure, but scholars and scientists are still hunting for answers. Today we'll do our best to make sense of all the theories, and separate fact from Shakespearean fiction. I'm Dr. Heenie-Bah, and this is Hidden History, a Rewine original powered by Pave Studios. On the show, works when real events from history that have yet to be fully explained, and

examining all the different theories from science to the supernatural and everything in between. From fantasializations and doomsday prophecies to paranormal experiences and unexplained phenomena, I'm looking at it all, and I want you to join me. Before we begin, I'd love it if you could rate, review, and follow Hidden History, your

support allows our community to grow, and for other people to discover the show. Today, I'm talking about the princes in the tower, two boys who should have ruled England and instead banished inside one of the most fortified buildings in the world. It's a mystery that's gone unsolved for over 500 years, and it has everything, a scheming uncle, a stolen crown, a cover-up that rewrote history, and a secret that researchers

might finally be cracking open right now.

Let's talk groceries, specifically your groceries, with Instacart. You want your groceries just the way you like them, right? Well, the Instacard app lets you do just that. They have a new preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences up front, helping guide their choices. Instacard, get groceries, just how you like.

April 9th, 1483, a 12-year-old boy sits alone in Ludlow Castle, a fortified stronghold about 150 miles from London. His name is Edward, and as of today, he is a king of England. His father King Edward IV just died after a 10-day illness. The crown passes to his son automatically. Under normal circumstances, this would call for celebrations, fees, jowls, the whole spectacle. But nothing about this coronation is

“going to be a party. Before we can talk about what happened next, you need to understand”

what came before. For nearly three decades, England have been torn apart by conflict known as the wars of the roses. And behind the flowery title was all the quarterly entry you

could imagine. Here's a set up. Two powerful noble families, both believed they had the

strongest claim to the English throne. On one side, the House of Lancaster, who symbol was a red rose. On the other, the House of York, who symbol was a white rose. Both families traced their lineage back to King Edward III, who ruled from 1327 to 1377. After he died, the crown eventually went to the Lancaster's, but the yours were waiting in the wings for their chance to strike. That's 4 to 1455. King Edward VI was weak, easily manipulated,

and indecisive. It was the opening the yorks we're looking for. They claimed their bloodline gave them a stronger right to rule, raised an army, and after years of brutal fighting, they won. Our young princess father, Edward IV, defeated Henry VI, in 1461, and took the crown. If this house familiar, it's because George R. Murn has openly said the wars of the roses was a major inspiration for Game of Thrones. The political betrayals, the shifting alliances,

the sudden reversals of fortune, all of it, just without dragons. Edward IV was the new top dog, but also immediately, he made a decision that blew everything up. When he secretly married a woman named Elizabeth Woodville, now Elizabeth wasn't a comener, she was a noble woman. So no big deal,

“right? Well, here's the thing. Sure, she was a noble, just not noble enough. The lords who”

had helped Edward with their own expected him to marry strategically may be into foreign royalty. There are levels who escape, and the woodville's weren't anywhere close to the top. And to add insult to injury, Edward was doing everything he could to elevate the woodville's. Think titles,

one of the most powerful men in England, and one of Edward's key allies, completely defected

“to the Lancaster's side, along with Edward's own brother, George. Together, they pull off what's”

called the reduction of 1470. They really put Henry VI back on a throne and drove Edward to exile. It was brother against brother, and things weren't letting up. Before long, Edward came back from exile, crushed the Lancaster in forces, it started with thoughtily eliminating any of Henry's remaining airs who could challenge him again. Meanwhile, Henry VI was in back to the tower of London, or he died in captivity at age 49. And here's where all of this backstory really starts

to come into play. One, it shows us how brutal both sides were when it came to establishing legitimacy.

Brother, against brother, the merciless elimination of all challengers, whatever it took to win.

And, too, it introduces us to a major character in this story, the Tower of London. Now, calling it a tower is a bit of a misnomer. It's really more like a giant, fortified complex complete with a royal palace. It's where the royal jewels are kept. And back then, where the realms greatest enemies were imprisoned. Like I mentioned, it's where Henry VI met his

“end, which brings us to the third important piece from the redemption, a royal murder mystery.”

Before Henry died, he seemed to be in decent health. And when his body was buried, some witnesses noted there was blood on his body, suggesting he might have been bludgeoned to death. In 1910, a study of what was believed to be his remains showed that his skull may have been violently broken, but no one was ever charged, no one was ever convicted. The Tower of London had just burned a dark new reputation. The place where political prisoners go to disappear.

With his enemies defeated, editor of the fourth ruled in a relative piece from 1471 until his death in 1483. The economy was stable, the royal budget was balanced, and standing right beside him was his younger brother, Richard Duke of Gloster. Richard was exceptionally capable, an unlike Edward's older brother, George, who was executed in 1478 for treason, he actually seemed loyal. So Edward gave Richard real responsibility, sending him to govern the north of England.

By all accounts, Richard did a great job. He set up a council to govern the north, giving important allies a formal say in how things were run. He built genuine goodwill with the land of gentry, the civic leaders, the people who made things actually run. Richard was popular. That popularity

“made Edward's life much easier. But here's the thing about people who were genuinely brilliant”

at politics. They understand power better than anyone. They can see every angle, every vulnerability, every gap. An Edward had a major blind side. His wife, Elizabeth Woodville. Even with their opposition crushed, Edward still faced a court full of nobles who resented the Woodville's and their outsides influence. Richard helped keep the piece acting as a buffer between Edward and the angry

old guard, but it was always a taking time bomb. At an April of 1883, that bomb went off.

When Edward IV suddenly died, England went into crisis mode. His son, also named Edward, was now king. But Edward V was only 12 years old. And most of the real court thought he was too young to rule without guidance. Not only that, but if young Edward was allowed to rule on his own, the Woodville's would have a lot of influence over him. And that definitely could happen. Edward IV had seen this coming. Before he died, he named his brother Richard the Lord protector

of both his sons. That made him legally responsible for the boy's care and for managing the kingdom until young Edward came of age. In theory, this put Richard in charge of everything, and he knew it. After his brother died, Richard intercepted young Edward on his way to London from Ludlow Castle. Presenting himself as the boy's loyal protector, there to escort the new king safely to London for his coordination. And according to Richard, there were enemies in the wrist.

The next day, he arrested every single member of Edward's traveling entourage. That included Edward's uncle Anthony Woodville. Richard accused the whole group of conspiring against the king. Which he didn't really have any evidence for, but Richard wasn't charged and nobody was questioning. So Anthony and the others were locked up leaving Richard as his nephew's soul guardian

all about this. And she panicked. She grabbed her younger son Richard, and lots of Edward's

“enrichments here, then fled with him and her daughters to Westminster Abbey for sanctuary. Under medieval”

law, that made them untouchable, even a king couldn't arrest someone's sheltering in a church. If for a moment, it looks like a stalemate. The elder Richard arrived in London with Edward 5. The coordination was still technically happening, although Richard quietly pushed the date back from a 4th, 1483 to June 22nd. And again, he didn't need to explain himself. Then came his next move. Richard pressured Elizabeth Woodville to release her younger son from sanctuary. His

argument was that Edward needed companionship while he waited for coordination day. Elizabeth went along with it. Young Richard, just nine years old, left the safety of Westminster Abbey and joined his brother Edward in the Tower of London. Wish meant their uncle had control over everyone ahead of him

“in the line succession. With both boys in his grasp, Richard indefinitely postponed the”

coordination. This time, he did give a reason. And he was a bombshell. According to Richard, there were rumors that the princes were illegitimate. He said that Edward IV had been secretly patrol to another woman before Elizabeth Woodville, which would have invalidated their marriage

thereby making the boys unable to inherit the throne. The powerful families at court could

sense which way the win was flowing. This was their chance to cut the Woodville's off at the knees. So in June 25th, 1483, a group of nobles petition parliament to declare both princes incapable of succeeding to the crown. They got their wish. And that same day, as any Woodville and the members of Edward's arrested entourage were executed. Virtues of most dangerous opponents

“were gone. And on July 6th, 1483, Richard Duke of Blaster was crowned King of England as Richard”

the third. While the new king was enjoying his rise to power, the two princes, Edward, the former heir to the throne, and his little brother, the younger Richard, were held in the inner apartments of the tower of London. And things seemed fine. When this is reports seen them around the ground at first, like any kids, they played outside when they could try to couple together some sense of a normal life in anything but normal situation. But they could sense something was wrong,

especially Edward. In a talent-clare reported that Edward was frequently seen seeking confession and repentance, almost like he could sense that the end was near. And he wasn't the only one who knew that time was short. There were multiple rescue attempts to get the boys out of the tower, but Richard crushed them all. After that, the boys were seen less and less around the grounds, and then they disappeared completely. By late 1483, rumors were spreading that the

princes were dead. Richard never tried to prove otherwise. He never opened an investigation.

He never publicly addressed the rumors at all. But he'd only turn a blind eye to it for so long. And just as Richard thought his reign was taking off, it came to a screeching halt. Instacart makes grocery shopping easier. And just because you're not doing the shopping yourself, doesn't mean you don't care how it's done. With Instacart shopper notes, you can get particular about what you want, right in the app, like we're Tisserie Chicken that's extra crispy.

Cheddar that's sharp as your skates, and let us you'd actually pick yourself. Just leave a note for your shopper so they can get it right for you without having to ask. Not way, you can get groceries just how you like. Download the Instacart app and shop today. With their princes out of sight, Richard hoping, out of mind, he turned his attention to ruling the kingdom. But the rest of the country wasn't so ready to move on. Although plenty of people had gone along with his plan to

declare young Edward and Richard illegitimate, their apparent murder was a step too far. The circumstances of Richard's takeover were so violent, so blatant, that even people who'd originally supported him were horrified. A faction of disaffected Yorkis for Richard's own house, joined forces with the last remaining Lancaster in exile from the wars of the roses. Together, they rallied around a man named Henry Tutor, a distant Lancaster relative who spent his entire life

in exile on the European continent. Henry Tutor was especially well known, but yet two things going for him. A claim to the throne, and most importantly, the backing of people who were done with Richard.

but Richard had made a critical mistake. After he became king, he abandoned everything that had

made him so popular before. Instead of making new friends, he closed rings,

“concentrated power, and ruled with an iron fist. He'd forgotten the most important lesson of his”

own rise, that he needed other powerful families on his side. So when Henry Tutor landed in Wales with an army in August of 1885, Richard found himself drastically short on allies. The two forces met at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August 22nd, 1485, and this is where the game of thrones of it all really kicks in. Because in the middle of the battle, keen noble families, switch sides, mid-fight, and joined Henry Tutor's forces instead.

Richard III was killed in battle. He was the last English monarch to die in combat, from my Shakespeare lover's quote, "my kingdom for horse." After the death settled, Henry Tutor claimed the throne as Henry VII. To end the war as the roses and bring the kingdom together, he married Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's daughter and the princess sister. Two sides were finally united as one, the war was over, but one final question hung in the air.

“What had actually happened to those two boys in the tower?”

Let's start with the most obvious aspect, Richard III himself. He definitely had a motive,

even with the princess legitimacy under question, they would always be a threat to his rule.

As we saw with Henry Tutor, even someone with a distant claim to the throne can be dangerous. If the right people support them, and with how brutal the wars that the roses were, uncle on nephew violence wouldn't be out of the question here. Remember, Richard didn't bother with any kind of investigation into the prince's disappearance. He's saying perfectly happy for the problem to just go away. Which brings us to opportunity. The princes were locked up

in the tower of London guarded by Richard's men. If he wanted to waltz in there and commit murder, nobody was about to stop him. So if we were conducting a criminal investigation, we'd have two of the three major boxes checked, which leaves just one more. The means. And this is where things start to get murky. Because one of the princes were last seen, Richard was on a tour of the darkest heartlands. That would mean he didn't do the deed himself. Which isn't surprising.

I don't think anyone would expect him to get his hands dirty like that. It just means he had someone to do it for him. And he wouldn't trust a job like that to some random guard. It would have to be someone close to Richard. Someone he trusted. Which brings us to our first candidate, Sir James Tiro. Tiro had fought for the yorks in the wars of the roses and was basically one of Richard's most loyal men. Interestingly enough, he was appointed a knight of the body, master of the horse

and master of the henchmen in June of 1483, right before the princes vanished. And even after Richard was killed, Tiro stayed loyal to the yorks. In 1502, he was arrested for supporting them in a rebellion against the crown, which is one of his alleged role in the princess murder was exposed. Apparently after Tiro's captured, he confessed to murdering the princes on Richard's orders.

“He was tried for trees in May of 1502 and executed four days later. So what do we think?”

Case closed? Not so fast. Tiro's confession wasn't officially noted in his historical record. Most of what we accept as historical fact about Richard's guilt comes from one primary source. Sir Thomas Moore. Moore was a brilliant lawyer at scholar who became Lord Chancellor of England in 1529. He wrote one of the most detailed early accounts of Richard's crimes, describing James Tiro's confession, Richard's villainy, the whole story. It was compelling.

But here's a catch. Moore was just a kid when Richard III was alive. When he grew up, he served the tutor dynasty, which had every political interest in portraying Richard as a monster. So even though Moore's version of events has become the de facto go-to, there's no real evidence behind it. It's mostly just the story that took hold and

never really went away. So maybe James Tiro was innocent after all, and some people think Richard

may have been too. That brings us to Henry Stafford the Duke of Buckingham. He was Richard's right-hand man in the royal coup, but Stafford might not have been only serving the new king's interests. He was married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister, which put him on the doorstep to the throne. Some historians think Stafford won it for himself,

flat-out blame Stafford claiming Richard handed the princes over to him, and that Stafford

“starved them to death without the king's knowledge. At a 1980, a document from the College of”

Arms archives surface cleaning the murders were carried out quote by the vise of the Duke of Buckingham and quote. And there's a chance Richard might have found out about it, because in November 1483, Stafford was executed for rebellion. But before we say, "Okay, this is the guy, there's a hole's here too," because if Stafford had gone behind Richard's back to kill the princes, you'd think the king would say something. It would have been the perfect opportunity

clear his own name and short of support for his rule. But instead he stayed silent, which tips the guilt scaled back towards Richard. And pulling off a murder inside the tower of London would have apart a full conspiracy, guards, complexes, silence from everyone, not exactly an easy feat. So while Stafford may have well been involved, the idea that he acted entirely alone feels weak. Considering Richard had him killed just a few months later, it probably wasn't

him. But could there have been someone else pulling the strings? Some people think it was someone else who benefited from the princes being out the way. The next king, Henry Tudor. After Henry Tudor took the crown and became Henry VII, he saw his systematically removing anyone who could credibly challenge his right to rule. Sound familiar? The Duke princes definitely

fit that bill, especially because one of Henry's first axis king was to repeal the law declaring

the princess illegitimate, which created a bit of a conundrum. On the service, it was just as for

“two boys who had been viciously murdered by their uncle. But remember, nobody had ever confirmed”

that the princes were dead, which meant that Henry may have created two more rivals and maybe he decided to take them out to himself. One theory proposes that Henry had the princess killed between June and July of 1486 shortly after taking the throne. His story is pointed out that account's blaming Richard for the deaths only started appearing after that date, conveniently time to redirect suspicion away from the new king. There's also the strange case of the princess

mother, Elizabeth Woodville. In February of 1487, Henry VII seized her possessions and confined her to Burmese Abby, where she lived out the rest of her life. One interpretation is that Henry was keeping her contained because she knew the truth, that the Richard story was a fabrication and he was the one responsible for her son's death. But historians are divided on why Elizabeth went to Burmese with some arguing she went voluntarily. And no credible contemporary source directly

accused Henry of the murders, even among his many enemies who would have loved to make that charge. So this theory has to live under the realm of speculation, compelling, sure, but like the rest of them still unproven. Which allows us to question another possibility. What if the princess actually made it out of the tower alive? Okay, so one of everyone has been looking at this, let's talk groceries, specifically your groceries,

with Instacart. You want your groceries just the way you like them, right? Well, the Instacard app lets you do just that. They have a new preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences up front, helping guide their choices. Instacart, get groceries, just how you like. Completely backwards. One of the princess didn't die at all. There is a theory that Henry VII kept quiet not because he was responsible for their death,

but because he knew that at least one of the princess was still alive. Specifically, the Edward hadn't been murdered, he died from illness. While young Richard had escaped or been secretly smuggled

“out. And instead of trying to find him, Henry quietly kept the secret buried. I know it sounds”

far-fetched, but then, in 1491, a young man arrived in Ireland from mainland Europe and declared himself to be Prince Richard Duke of York. His name was Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck was charismatic, multi-lingual, and convincing. He claimed to have escaped the tower as a child and been hidden in

Europe under a false identity. And crazy enough, some of the most powerful people in Europe believed

him. Margaret of York, Richard III's own sister, formally recognized Perkin Warbeck as her nephew, King James IV, a Scotland accepted him as the true Prince Richard, and used his claim to justify invading England on his behalf. This wasn't some French Pretender being humored in a back room.

Henry VII eventually captured Warbeck in 1497. Under pressure, he recanted his claims

was in prison and later executed. Henry's official position was that Warbeck was a fraud.

“He was nothing more than the son of a French-built man co-st to play a part. But was he?”

The question doesn't settle easily. Modern historian Philip Alangli doesn't believe Richard III killed the Prince's. And she has serious credibility. In 2012, Langley found Richard III's actual skeleton buried beneath a parking lot in Lester, England. These days, she leaves the missing Prince's project, which has been searching European archives for proof that the boys survived. Their findings are surprising. They claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Princess

were alive and in contact with European royalty as late as 1493. One piece of evidence is

statement dated 1493 that they argued was written by young Richard himself describing how he escaped to Europe. There's also documents suggesting Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I identified a man

“as Prince Richard by Verifying III distinctive birthmarks on his body. In 2021, the missing”

princess project announced even more dramatic claim. They believe they can trace young Edward's life to the rule village of Coldrich. A young man named John Evans arrived there around 1484, right around when the princess disappeared, and was immediately granted a formal position in the title of Lord of the Manor for no apparent reason. Around 1511, Evans Commission York assembles and staying glass windows depicting Edward V for the local church, imagery that was completely out of place for

small deven village, not to mention outdated. Researchers believe these could have been subtle tributes to the life he was forced to leave behind. A way to honor his identity without putting a target on his back. But as with everything in this case, it's not that easy.

“In 1674, workers renovating the tower of London, discard the skeletal remains of two children”

buried beneath a staircase. King Charles II had them moved to Westminster Abbey where they

rest to this day, always assumed to be the princes. But that's just an assumption. The bones

have never been subjected to modern DNA analysis, requests examined that have repeatedly been declined out of respect for the burial site. Until those remains are tested, the question of whether the boys died in that tower or lived out quite alive somewhere in Europe can not be definitively answered. The work of the missing princess project is still disputed in academic circles, but is genuinely active, and the evidence they're covering deserves serious attention.

As so, the mystery stays open. What gets me about this story isn't the mystery itself, is the innocence at the center of it. Two children, 12 and 9 years old, placed in the middle of a power struggle they didn't choose by adults who saw them purely as obstacles or assets. Their father was dead. Their mother was combined to an Abbey. Their uncle legally responsible for their protection turned out to be the man who imprisoned them. And the

man who eventually defeated that uncle saw them as complications. The most horrible thing to contemplate was that these boys had no agency, no voice, no protector, whose interests were truly aligned with theirs. For Richard III, they were just obstacles to power. For everyone who came after, there were still pieces on a board, symbols, liabilities, political problems to be managed. That's not unique to medieval England, and it's not unique to royalty. Children get caught in the

crossfire of adult power struggles across history, across cultures, right up to today. There's also something we're sitting with about how history gets written. The official story of the princess in the tower was shaped almost entirely by people with a vested interest in a particular version of events. Tudor Loyolas who needed Richard III to be a monster. The version that won wasn't necessarily the most accurate. It was a version told by whoever

had the power to tell it. The princess were true victims. They were too young to become cynical, violent, or corrupt. They were just two boys playing in the courtyard of the fortress that had become their prison. This story should be a reminder that youth is fragile, that children rely on us for protection, safety, and the freedom to grow. Let's try to take their responsibility seriously. So what do I think happened? In this case, the easiest answer seems to be in the most likely.

deed itself. With historical mysteries like these, it's tempting to imagine the most interesting and least traumatic possibility that the princess survived went on to lead a full life and died outside the public eye. But sadly, it probably didn't turn out that way. As we learn, this period of history was pretty brutal, especially when it came to taking out family members. So even

“though some of Richard III's cruelty might have been exaggerated, I think it's definitely possible”

that he was more than happy to let his nephew die. Where's brings us to the final piece of this?

What would be like if this happened today? First of all, it's pretty hard to make anyone

disappear like that, much less the heir to a massive state and his little brother. A mansion of William and Harry just vanished one day back in the 90s. I think a lot of people would be asking questions. So it's safe to say that something like the princess and the tower mystery wouldn't happen today. At least not with two high-profile people like that. Although, just think about all the

“theories out there about famous celebrities still being alive. Elvis, Michael Jackson, even Princess”

Diana. So maybe it's not that crazy to think something at least tangentially similar could happen. But before we get out of here, I want to focus on the genuine scientific opportunity here that we're not taking advantage of. Those bones and Westminster Abbey have been there since 1674. Modern DNA analysis, isotope testing, and age at death estimation could potentially tell us definitively whether those remains belong to the princess. We couldn't match their DNA against living descendants

of the house of York. The answers might actually be sitting there waiting. The debate about whether to examine those bones is very much alive today. It may eventually be resolved.

If it is, we might finally get the answer to one of history's most enduring questions.

Edward and Richard may have been silent in their own time, but over 500 years later, people are still fighting for the truth on their behalf. And maybe someday we'll get it. Thanks so much for joining me for this episode of Hidden History. I'm Dr. Hoony Bot. Join me next time as we explore another unbelievable story from the past. What do you think happened

“to the princess in the tower? Was Richard the third guilty or has history been unfair to him?”

Let me know in the comments. I'd love to hear your theories and I might bring them up in a future episode. And be sure to subscribe on YouTube or rate, review, and follow if you're listening on audio so we can keep building this community together. Thanks for watching, and I'll see you at the next episode. Up Champion, check out Betham GM Original Betts, hockey markets you can't find anywhere else.

And it's not just about what you can do on Game Day. The Betham GM app has improved its first line this season to include instant withdrawals and data insights. Down low the Betham GM app

and enjoy the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs like never before. Betham GM.com for terms of conditions,

90 plus the wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-86-6-by-3-1-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Betham GM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with eye-gaming Ontario.