Was a ruthless Tudor matriarch behind the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower?

In the summer of 1483, two boys vanished inside the most famous fortress in England. Edward V, aged 12, and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, were last seen in the Tower of London after their uncle seized the throne as Richard III. Within months, they were gone, and Richard stood to benefit.

But he’s not the only potential culprit behind the disappearance of the two boys who became known to history as the Princes in the Tower. Over the centuries, suspicion has settled on other figures including Henry VII, Henry Stafford, and Margaret Beaufort.

Beaufort was the canny and formidable mother of Henry VII, and matriarch of the Tudor dynasty. Was she, as some rumours have suggested, the hidden hand behind the princes’ disappearance?

According to historian Lauren Johnson, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast, the answer is unequivocal. “There is absolutely no evidence that Margaret orchestrated the disappearance – or the murder, I believe – of the Princes in the Tower.”

The Princes in the Tower, and the problem of power

Who were the princes in the Tower, and why were they important?

Young Edward V was the eldest son of Edward IV, and an uncrowned king; his brother Richard was next in line. After Edward IV’s sudden death in April 1483, the boys were placed in the Tower of London, ostensibly for Edward’s protection before his coronation.

Instead, their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, declared their parents’ marriage invalid, had himself crowned Richard III, and kept the boys locked away. By the autumn of that year, they had disappeared.

Some have suggested they might have escaped to a foreign country, smuggled out by a benign benefactor. But, as Johnson argues, given the violence of the period and the amount that people stood to gain from their removal, it was more likely that they were murdered.

In late medieval England, royal imprisonment could be a death sentence. “Look at what happened to Henry VI: he gets murdered in the Tower. There are other instances of kings who are locked up – Edward II, Richard II – they don’t make it out.”

Against that backdrop, the princes’ disappearance looks to be part of a broader trend of royals who were locked away and murdered.

But who might have done it?

Why Margaret Beaufort became a suspect

Margaret Beaufort was, by 1483, one of the most powerful women in England. A wealthy and politically astute noblewoman, she was also the mother of Henry Tudor – a distant Lancastrian claimant to the throne who was at that time living in exile, in part due to the risk of violence against him as a rival for the kingship.

When Henry defeated Richard III at Bosworth in 1485, Margaret’s influence and prominence grew further.

• Read more | The Wars of the Roses: the 15th-century clash of kings that heralded the dawn of the Tudor dynasty

Her success has encouraged later generations to look back and imagine her as a ruthless architect of events. In some versions of the story, the disappearance of two rival princes becomes a necessary step in clearing the way for her son’s accession.

But this image of events isn’t medieval in origin. “No one at the time thought it,” Johnson stresses. “No one suggested the possibility of Margaret’s plotting in any way for [at least another] 150 years. It is essentially a product of fiction.”

Instead, the idea emerged much later, shaped by Tudor mythmaking and a persistent suspicion of politically powerful women.

Motive, means and opportunity

When historians consider who might have been responsible for the princes’ fate, they return to basic questions of motive, means and opportunity. On all three counts, Johnson argues, Margaret Beaufort is an implausible candidate.

“The one person who had access and motivation to get rid of these children was the person who was sitting on the throne,” she says. “And that was Richard, as far as I’m concerned.”

Indeed, Richard III arguably had the strongest incentive to neutralise his young rival claimants, who would surely have become a growing political problem.

Beyond motive, there are question of logistics. The Tower of London was heavily guarded, tightly managed, and central to royal authority. Margaret Beaufort, far from being an anonymous figure, was highly recognisable and closely watched.

• Read more | Have we finally unmasked the killer of the Princes in the Tower?

“There’s no way that some random noblewoman is going to be getting into the Tower,” Johnson says, “or having one of her very recognisable attendants get into the Tower.” Any attempt by her, or on her behalf, to interfere with royal prisoners would almost certainly have been noticed.

But none of this means that Margaret Beaufort was politically passive. She was strategically engaged in dynastic manoeuvring, though constrained by limits imposed by her position and visibility. “We have so little information about Margaret’s activities in this period because she’s very careful,” Johnson explains.

So why does the accusation endure? Partly because the fate of the princes technically remains unresolved, and partly because Margaret Beaufort’s later success makes her an alluring suspect.

But there’s no direct evidence to support that narrative.

“There’s nothing to it,” Johnson concludes.

Case closed?

Lauren Johnson was speaking to Emily Briffett on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.