Review: The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence. Channel 4.
Did Richard III murder the Princes in the Tower or has Phillipa Langley uncovered more bones from the past? The jury is still out as Robert Rinder helps to investigate.
Documentaries. It has become a method where a lot of people can get their history fix. There is of course an issue with them. Skillfully edited, with the potential to suit any narrative, they can portray anything we want them to depending on the evidence that is carefully selected well in advance.
The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence is one such example of a documentary that comes complete with an agenda. Its purpose is to prove that Richard III did not kill his nephews, Edward V and Richard Duke of York. Richard at the time was Edward’s protector but he later declared the two boys to be illegitimate and took the throne for himself. The two boys were kept at the Tower of London allegedly for their own protection, vanished, and that it was Richard who had them killed.
Since that time, there has been plenty of speculation about what may have happened to Edward V and Richard Duke of York. However, the common belief is that the boys were murdered. Yet, as long as there is any form of doubt it is almost impossible to be consulsive.
Following the Battle of Bosworth and Richard III's defeat at the hands of Henry Tudor, the two princes were declared legitimate and Henry untied the houses of York and Tudor with his marriage to Elizabeth of York. By declaring the princes legitimate, he undoubtedly created an issue for himself. If they were still alive and perhaps roaming around the courts of Europe, either of the surviving princes had more of a claim to the throne of England of England.
The propaganda campaign, in the eyes of many eager to please Henry VII, had now begun. The aim to vilify Richard III with more testimony about his potential involvement in the boys’ murder had gone into overdrive.
This is of course the whole premise of the documentary as Phillipa Langley and Robert Rinder explore the story even further. Roaming European archives, meeting experts and discovering more documents along the way to support Langley’s theory that Richard did not kill the princes whilst Rinder questions the evidence brought to him.
It’s all very convincing. It is after all designed to be that way. Whilst the design of the documentary is to portray two people searching for the truth on some kind of road tour, you can not help but feel that regardless of Rinder’s constant questioning, it all feels a little setup.
This is of course the nature of history. Whether we like to admit it or not, history is never a definitive narrative. Based on historical sources it can only ever represent A past, and never the past. The historian compiles, analyses, and then produces histories based on sources from the past. With this in mind, there will always be disagreement. It’s a healthy disagreement and (in my opinion) neither side should be discounted fully without concrete proof.
The key issue with a cold case such as The Princes in the Tower is that definitive proof is in short supply. Therefore you are left with more reading and learning to do.
The pretenders to the throne in the form of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck are central to the arguments about the survival of the Princes. This is hardly new in terms of contextual knowledge. The pretenders have been much discussed prior to the making of the documentary. I even remember learning about the likes of Simnel and Warbeck way back during my A Level education.
The Princes of the Tower and the mystery that surrounds it are all about what could be. A lot of it depends on which side you are on. Team Tudor or Team Richard. Whilst the documentary is clearly on the side of Richard given Langley’s famous involvement in her uncovering Richard III’s body under a car park, it is important to remember that, like most historical documentaries, we are being told one side rather than the creation of a balanced argument.
That is not to say that we should dismiss the work. Far from it. What this does is to add another theory to the equation, another brick to the wall and present another history for us to explore. It helps us to find out more about this extraordinary cold case. But we must consider all aspects of the case rather than being guided by any form of bias.
The battle for Richard’s reputation has once again been ignited by Langley and that is to be commended however, it is important to remember the process of history, to cross-reference our sources thoroughly rather than to believe everything we read, or in this case, watch.
The lack of conclusive evidence has plagued many in the past. Jack the Ripper has created an industry among Ripperologists with a fresh suspect identified on an annual basis. Mystery and intrigue sell and we seem to cling to our beliefs in what we think we know. With conviction and at times, vitriol, it is in other’s interests to insist that their belief trumps all others. Social media has of course added to the interest, speculation, dismissiveness and argument. This documentary, of course, created a surge of all of these aspects across the medium. Opinions, whether right or wrong, informed or ill-judged, simply cement other’s beliefs.
Whatever you choose to believe, there is no doubting Langley’s determination and passion to help Richard’s cause. Yet, I will simply urge you to watch (or read the accompanying book) and judge for yourselves. Hopefully, it will galvanise you to find out more from all sides of history.
The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence is available to watch now on 4od
You can get a copy of The Princes in the Tower here (by clicking the link you will be redirected to Amazon where Inside History will receive a small commission from every sale)