A British historian has reignited one of England’s greatest historical mysteries, claiming she has uncovered compelling evidence that the infamous “Princes in the Tower” were not murdered by their uncle, Richard III — and may have survived well into adulthood.
Philippa Langley, the historian and screenwriter best known for discovering Richard III’s remains beneath a Leicester car park, has spent the last decade investigating the fate of Edward V and his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury. Working alongside professional cold case investigators as part of the Missing Princes Project, Langley has unearthed a wealth of previously unseen documents and letters that she believes challenge the long-held narrative that Richard III ordered their murder in 1483.
The young princes, aged 12 and 9, were last seen in the Tower of London following the sudden death of their father, Edward IV. Traditionally, history has cast their uncle, Richard III, as the villain, citing his political motives and the subsequent disappearance of the boys. However, as reported by The Independent UK, Langley argues that the case against Richard lacks any concrete evidence.
“If Richard III had killed them, he would have needed to show their bodies to solidify his claim to the throne. Instead, they vanished—leaving the door open for pretenders,” Langley said, noting that displaying their corpses would have dissuaded future uprisings.
Langley’s research suggests that the princes may have resurfaced during Henry VII’s reign, posing direct threats to his legitimacy. According to her findings, Henry attempted to undermine their claims by branding them impostors: Edward V as “Lambert Simnel,” the supposed son of a tradesman, and Richard as “Perkin Warbeck,” said to be the son of a French boatman. Both challengers later confessed under pressure to being frauds, but Langley and her team believe these confessions were coerced by Henry VII to eliminate rivals and rewrite the narrative.
Among the documents uncovered are letters backing a rebellion by “Edward IV’s son” in 1487 — coinciding with Simnel’s uprising — and multiple references to a “son of King Edward” appearing in royal correspondence. There are also signed items and letters from “Richard” addressed to James IV of Scotland, and even a papal document supporting his identity.
Langley also points to a mysterious biography chronicling the life of a prince in exile, speculated to be Richard, Duke of York. The author remains unknown, but Langley believes it strengthens the case that the princes were not only alive but active long after their supposed deaths.
The longstanding accusation that Sir James Tyrell, a servant of Richard III, murdered the princes is based largely on a confession extracted under torture — a claim first popularized by Sir Thomas More and dramatized by Shakespeare. But the original confession document has never been found, and Langley questions its authenticity.
“The truth is, had we presented this volume of evidence to claim Richard III was guilty, no one would ask for more,” Langley told The Times. “Now the burden is on others to prove that he did kill the princes.”
Officially, the remains of two children were discovered in 1674 beneath a staircase in the Tower of London. The bones were placed in an urn and buried in Westminster Abbey by order of King Charles II, though their identity was never scientifically confirmed.
While Richard III has long been the leading suspect, other historical figures have also been implicated, including:
- Henry VII: Richard’s rival, who had a clear motive and a record of executing rival claimants after ascending the throne.
- Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham: A powerful political figure with royal blood and ambitions, mentioned in a 15th-century manuscript as being involved in the murder.
- Sir James Tyrell: The alleged executioner, whose confession under duress remains questionable.
Langley’s latest work is likely to reignite debate among historians and the public alike. While many still support the traditional account, her extensive research raises new questions about whether England’s most notorious royal cold case might need a second look.
As The Independent UK noted, the controversy is far from settled — but the past may be more alive than we think.
