Editing Edward V (section)

==Disappearance==
{{Main|Princes in the Tower}}
[[File:DelarocheKingEdward.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|King Edward V and the Duke of York in the Tower of London by [[Paul Delaroche]]. The theme of innocent children awaiting an uncertain fate was a popular one amongst 19th-century painters. [[Louvre]], Paris]]

Dominic Mancini recorded that after Richard III seized the throne, Edward and his brother Richard were taken into the "inner apartments of the Tower" and then were seen less and less until the end of the summer to the autumn of 1483, when they disappeared from public view altogether. During this period Mancini records that Edward was regularly visited by a doctor, who reported that Edward, "like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."<ref>"The Usurpation of Richard the Third", ''Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium libellus''; Translated to English by C. A. J. Armstrong (London, 1936)</ref> The Latin reference to {{Lang|la|Argentinus medicus}} had previously been translated as "a doctor from Strasbourg", because the Latin name for the city of [[Strasbourg]], {{Lang|la|Argentoratum}}, was still current at the time; however, D. E. Rhodes suggests it may actually refer to "Doctor Argentine", whom Rhodes identifies as [[John Argentine]], an English physician who would later serve as provost of [[King's College, Cambridge]], and as doctor to [[Arthur, Prince of Wales]], eldest son of King [[Henry VII of England]] (Henry Tudor).<ref name="Rhodes">{{Cite journal |last=Rhodes |first=D. E. |date=April 1962 |title=The Princes in the Tower and Their Doctor |journal=The English Historical Review |publisher=Oxford University Press |volume=77 |issue=303 |pages=304–306 |doi=10.1093/ehr/lxxvii.ccciii.304}}</ref>

The princes' fate after their disappearance remains unknown, but the most widely accepted theory is that they were murdered on the orders of their uncle, King Richard.<ref name="Horrox">Horrox, Rosemary. "[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8521 Edward V of England]". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 25 August 2013. {{Subscription required}}</ref> [[Thomas More]] (1478-1535) wrote that they were smothered to death with their pillows, and his account forms the basis of [[William Shakespeare]]'s play ''[[Richard III (play)|Richard III]]'', in which [[James Tyrrell|Tyrrell]] murders the princes on Richard's orders. In the absence of hard evidence a number of other theories have been put forward, of which the most widely discussed are that they were murdered on the orders of [[Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham]], or by Henry Tudor. However, [[A. J. Pollard]] points out that these theories are less plausible than the straightforward one that they were murdered by their uncle{{Sfnp|Pollard|1991|pp=124, 132}} who in any case controlled access to them and was therefore regarded as responsible for their welfare.{{Sfnp|Pollard|1991|p=137}} In the period before the boys' disappearance, Edward was regularly being visited by a doctor; historian [[David Baldwin (historian)|David Baldwin]] extrapolates that contemporaries may have believed Edward had died of an illness (or as the result of attempts to cure him).<ref name="BBC">[[David Baldwin (historian)|David Baldwin]], ''[https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/23574430 What happened to the Princes in the Tower?]'', [[BBC|BBC History]]: 2013</ref> An alternative theory is that [[Perkin Warbeck]], a pretender to the throne, was indeed Richard, Duke of York, as he claimed, having escaped to Flanders after his uncle's defeat at Bosworth to be raised by his aunt, [[Margaret of York|Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy]].

In 1486 Edward IV's daughter [[Elizabeth of York|Elizabeth]], sister of Edward V, married Henry VII, thereby uniting the Houses of York and Lancaster. In 1516, [[Margaret Arundell|Dame Margaret Capel]] bequeathed a chain that had belonged to Edward V to her son [[Giles Capel]].<ref>Susan E. James, ''Women's Voices in Tudor Wills, 1485–1603: Authority, Influence and Material'' (Ashgate, 2015), p. 88.</ref> This is one of the few known references to the personal possessions of the Princes in the Tower.<ref>Tim Thornton, "Sir William Capell and A Royal Chain: The Afterlives (and Death) of King Edward V", ''History: The Journal of the Historical Association'', 109:308 (2024), pp. 445–480. {{doi|10.1111/1468-229X.13430}}</ref>

In 2021, researchers from "The Missing Princes Project"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Philippa Langley |url=https://revealingrichardiii.com/langley.html |access-date=2023-11-28 |website=revealingrichardiii.com}}</ref> claimed to have found evidence that Edward may have lived out his days in the rural Devon village of [[Coldridge]]. They linked the 13-year-old prince with a man named John Evans, who arrived in the village around 1484, and was immediately given an official position and the title of Lord of the Manor.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Louie |date=2021-12-29 |title=Extraordinary discovery shows Richard III 'didn't murder Princes in tower' |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richard-iii-didnt-murder-princes-25809860 |access-date=2023-11-28 |website=The Mirror |language=en}}</ref> Researcher John Dike noted Yorkist symbols and stained glass windows depicting Edward V in a Coldridge chapel commissioned by Evans and built around 1511, unusual for the location.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gardner |first=Bill |date=2021-12-28 |title=Exclusive: Richard III may not have killed young princes in the Tower of London, researchers say |language=en-GB |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/28/richard-iii-may-not-have-killed-young-princes-tower-london-new/ |access-date=2023-11-28 |issn=0307-1235}}</ref>

Bones belonging to two children were discovered in 1674 by workmen rebuilding a stairway in the Tower. On the orders of King [[Charles II of England|Charles II]], these were subsequently placed in Westminster Abbey, in an urn bearing the names of Edward and Richard.<ref>Steane, John, ''The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy'' (Routledge, 1993), p. 65</ref> The bones were re-examined in 1933, at which time it was discovered the skeletons were incomplete and had been interred with animal bones. It has never been proven that the bones belonged to the princes, and it is possible that they were buried before the reconstruction of that part of the Tower of London.{{Sfnp|Weir|1992}} Permission for a subsequent examination has been refused.

In 1789, workmen carrying out repairs in [[St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle]], rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. Adjoining this was another vault, which was found to contain the coffins of two children. This tomb was inscribed with the names of two of Edward IV's children who had predeceased him: George, Duke of Bedford, and Mary. However, the remains of these two children were later found elsewhere in the chapel, leaving the occupants of the children's coffins within the tomb unknown.<ref>1. Chapter Records XXIII to XXVI, The Chapter Library, St. George's Chapel, Windsor (Permission required) 2. William St. John Hope, ''Windsor Castle: An Architectural History'', pages 418–419. (1913). 3. ''Vetusta Monumenta'', Volume III, page 4 (1789).</ref>

===Missing Princes Project===
In 2022, [[Philippa Langley]] led "The Missing Princes Project" to discover the fate of the [[Princes in the Tower]].<ref>{{cite web | newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/29/historys-greatest-whodunnit-would-ruined-solved/ |first=Daisy |last=Dunne |date=29 December 2021 | accessdate=23 January 2023 | title=History's greatest whodunnit would be ruined if we solved it, Philippa Langley team findings |quote=A team led by Philippa Langley, who found the skeleton of King Richard III under a car park in 2012, have uncovered what they believe to be clues to the survival of Edward V in the Devon village of Coldridge....}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | website=The Past | url=https://the-past.com/comment/what-really-happened-to-the-princes-in-the-tower/ |title=From the Princes in the Tower to Northumbria's Golden Age | first=Chris | last=Catling | date=22 November 2022 | accessdate=20 January 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.revealingrichardiii.com/langley.html |title=Missing Princes Project |accessdate=20 January 2023|publisher=Philippa Langley|date=2021}}</ref> The project began in 2015, following the reburial of Richard III in Leicester and was formally launched in July the following year.<ref>{{cite book |last=Langley |first=Philippa |year=2023 |title=The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case |location=Cheltenham |publisher=The History Press |isbn=9781803995410 |page=26 }}</ref> In 2023 she claimed to have discovered new evidence that disproved the theory that Richard III was responsible for the deaths of the princes. Along with [[Rob Rinder]], she hosted a [[Channel 4]] programme called ''Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence'', in which she revealed her own theories and new archival discoveries.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/historian-says-richard-iii-not-8914515|title=Historian says Richard III did not kill Princes in the Tower in 'landmark' Channel 4 show|date=17 November 2023|author=Lee Garrett|website=Leicester Mercury|access-date=24 November 2023}}</ref><ref>The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence Channel 4 Saturday 18 November. Retrieved 20 May 2024. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence  The Princes in the Tower PBS 22 November 2023. Retrieved 20 May 2024.  https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/preview-the-princes-in-the-tower-ybnnnv/7943/ </ref> Although praising Langley's discoveries, ''The Spectator'''s reviewer called the programme "a calculated insult to the viewer";<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-calculated-insult-to-the-viewer-channel-4s-the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence-reviewed/|title=A calculated insult to the viewer: Channel 4's The Princes in the Tower – The New Evidence reviewed|author=James Delingpole|website=The Spectator|date=22 November 2023 |access-date=24 November 2023}}</ref> ''The Times'' called it "compelling" and awarded the documentary its "Critics Choice."<ref>The Times, Review, Saturday 18 November 2023, p.20. Image only, see: [WIKI LANGLEY PRINCES DOC_ THETIMES CRITICS CHOICE_18 NOV 2023.jpg]</ref> The programme achieved a large audience<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence |url=https://www.brinkworth.tv/shows/the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240420170709/https://www.brinkworth.tv/shows/the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence/ |archive-date=20 April 2024 |access-date=20 May 2024 |website=Brinkworth Productions}}</ref> with Richard III and the Princes in the Tower trending on Twitter / X. The [[Richard III Society]] issued a press release stating: 
{{blockquote|The disappearance of the princes has always been described as a great unsolved mystery. Why? Because there was no evidence of their fate. Their murder was never more than conjecture, but it was put about by the authorities and – for safety’s sake – only the brave dared to think differently. From now on, history must take account of this new breakthrough evidence. No longer can anyone confidently claim the princes were killed by Richard III.<ref>{{cite press release |author=<!--Not stated--> |title=Princes in the Tower – History is Being Rewritten |publisher=Richard III Society |date=16 November 2023  |url=https://r3.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/231116_Richard_III_Society_Prince_in_the_Tower_Press_Release-1.pdf |access-date=28 July 2024 }}</ref>}}

Three leading members of the Dutch Research Group who had assisted in the project subsequently distanced themselves from Langley's documentary and book, arguing that the documents they had discovered "are in our own opinion open to various interpretations and do not constitute irrefutable proof" for the survival of the princes.<ref>{{cite magazine |first1=Zoë |last1=Maula |first2=Jean |last2=Roefstra |first3=William |last3=Wiss |title=Dutch statement on The Missing Princes Project |magazine=The Ricardian Bulletin |date=June 2024 |page=4 }}</ref> Langley responded that her conclusions were based on "the totality of evidence thus assembled and the outcomes of a modern police [[missing person]] investigation methodology ... (and not through a traditional historical research method)".<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Philippa |last=Langley |title=A reply from Philippa Langley |magazine=The Ricardian Bulletin |date=June 2024 |page=4 }}</ref> Historian [[Michael Hicks (historian)|Michael Hicks]] said that the new documents "do add to knowledge of the Tudor impostors, but they fall short of proof that either Edward V or Richard Duke of York survived beyond their disappearance in the autumn of 1483".<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Michael |last=Hicks |author-link=Michael Hicks (historian) |title=More proof needed on Princes |magazine=The Ricardian Bulletin |date=June 2024 |pages=4–5 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Michael |last=Hicks |author-link=Michael Hicks (historian) |title=Historic doubts about the survival of the Princes in the Tower after 1485 |journal=[[Historical Research]] |volume=97 |issue=277 |year=2024 |pages=437–442 |doi=10.1093/hisres/htae009 }}</ref>