In a quiet corner of Westminster Abbey, a stone urn holds the remains traditionally believed to be those of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York—the ill-fated Princes in the Tower. Discovered in 1674 during building work at the Tower of London, these bones have long been at the center of historical debate. Were they victims of political murder, or did they survive in secrecy?
This enduring mystery forms the foundation of my novels The Godmother’s Secret and The King’s Intelligencer, where documented history inspires historical fiction to explore the fate of the princes and those who may have kept their secrets.
But why weren’t the bones DNA tested when the remains of Richard III were discovered? An in-depth article published at the time by The Guardian explains the reasoning. Here’s a reprint of key extracts:
Previously confidential correspondence reveals that the Church of England, with backing from Queen Elizabeth and government ministers, has repeatedly refused requests to carry out similar forensic tests to those used to identify the remains of Richard III this week to see if the bones buried in Westminster Abbey are those of Richard’s two nephews.
DNA testing was refused on the grounds that it could set a precedent for testing historical theories that would lead to multiple royal disinterments. The church was also uncertain what to do with the remains if the DNA tests were negative, potentially leaving the church with the dilemma of how to manage bogus bones. Authorities also resisted on the grounds the tests could not finally establish “if Richard III is to be let off the hook”.
Tudor and Stuart histories insist that the remains contained in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren are those of Edward V and Richard Duke of York who were “stifled with pillows … by the order of their perfidious uncle Richard the Usurper”, as the 17th-century inscription puts it. A concerted attempt to get the urn opened was made by the Richard III Society, the group behind this week’s confirmation of Richard III’s remains, together with the BBC in 1993 and again by Channel 4 in 1995. A Home Office file shows the then dean of Westminster, the Very Rev Michael Mayne, strongly resisted both requests despite being “pressed very hard to agree” to allow the bones to be submitted to carbon dating, to match their deaths to Richard III’s reign, and DNA testing to prove their identities.
Buckingham Palace and then home secretary, Michael Howard, were consulted and both the Queen and the minister were in “full agreement” with the church authorities that matter should not be reopened. The dean took advice from the historian Lord Blake and an Oxford archaeology professor, Edward Hall, who said carbon dating of a sample from the late 15th century would only establish the accuracy of the bones within plus or minus 50 years. Richard III occupied the throne for two years between 1483 and 1485 before his death in the battle of Bosworth Field. “It could not therefore differentiate between Richard III or Henry VII – or another – being the guilty party. Nor would the C/14 technique give any clue as to the age at death of the children,” the dean said.
In his response to the 1995 request he said he accepted that DNA and other techniques could now establish whether or not the bones in the Abbey were those of the princes, although he could not resist mentioning the fiasco of the Turin shroud in this context. But he pointed out that in itself could create further problems.
“If the result is positive, the remains of the two princes are placed back in Sir Christopher Wren’s urn. But what if they are negative: what do we do with the remains? Keep them in the urn in the royal chapels, knowing they are bogus, or re-bury them elsewhere? And what would we have gained, other than to satisfy our curiosity in one area. It would not bring us any nearer the truth of the affair.”
Will the official position change? There is no indication that it will, although the Richard III Society continues to express an interest in testing the remains.
The Godmother’s Secret
London, 1483: If you knew what happened to the missing princes in the tower, would you tell? Or forever keep the secret.
“An extremely well-written book with depth and complexity to the main characters. The author says she wanted to write a book about family love and tolerance, and a woman’s loyalty and courage. She has done so. This is the best book I’ve read in ages!”
The Ricardian Bulletin – Richard III Society
The King’s Intelligencer
London, 1674: When children’s bones are unexpectedly unearthed in the Tower of London, England’s most haunting mystery—the fate of the missing princes—is reignited.
“Terrific scene-setting. Particularly intriguing is that these characters are members on St. John’s own family tree, the manor where many of the discoveries are made is the seat of her own family.”
Editor’s Choice, Historical Novel Society
Thanks for the explanation. I had heard the bones were rubble and chicken bones, and it was a Charles II ploy. Who knows. The romance is in the story at this point, not the reality.
Agree Sally – it’s perhaps better left with its entire history intact, the Stuart perspective is a fascinating one. The degradation of the contents of the urn is certainly another concern – if they were retrieved, there is a school of thought that it may be impossible to actually gather enough DNA to come up with accurate testing.
I can certainly see the scientific issues with testing if it might prove to be impossible to get a dna result, but don’t agree that there is an issue if these remains are not the princes – they could be re buried with dignity, and not be incorrectly interred under false names.
I suspect the Royal family don’t want the risk of other secrets being uncovered, especially around the line of succession.
I think those are all valid points, Lorna. There is a possibility that King Charles may be amenable to testing, but I think it’s a long shot.
Reportedly King Charles III HAS approved DNA testing of the remains. The excuse that there might not be enough recoverable DNA to conduct the tests is ridiculous. You try to gather such DNA as may be there, and if the sample is inadequate, that ends it. But it’s not an excuse for not trying.
I am fully convinced that Richard III ordered the murder of the boys just as I am that Vladimir Putin, with similar motives, orders the murders of Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny (among others), because no one else had as great a motive for this exceedingly dark deed, and because no underling would dare m*rder a royal prince without approval from “higher authority,” same as the m*rder of Thomas a Becket.
Identification of the remains will not fully put that issue to rest, but it will provide just a bit of closure as to the two boys, whoever they were.
Thanks for your thoughts, Barry. I hadn’t heard that there is an approval from King Charles, but will certainly update my post if that is the case. I think this article from the RIII Society is interesting – the speed at which science is advancing, it may actually pay to wait just a bit longer.
As for “who did it” or even “how did they die”: I’m afraid no amount of DNA testing that we have now is likely to answer those questions.
https://richardiii.net/richard-iii-his-world/reputation/the-princes/
I am checking to confirm that King Charles has not allowed for DNA testing of the bones in the Westminster Abbey urn. The reason I ask is there is a YouTube video which purports that the bones HAVE been tested and that they ARE a match for Elizabeth Woodville’s line but not the Edward’s Plantagenet line as tested against Richard III’s DNA collected when he was exhumed from the car park. I don’t know whether this is fact or fiction. I did not know (if true) that King Charles has allowed the testing. Thank you!
Hi Debra
Thanks for your comment. As far as I know, no DNA testing has been carried out. Your best source to stay informed is the Richard III Society – they have a comprehensive website and an active Facebook group. I think it will make the news in a big way if this does come about.
I would not have believed that they could find the Bons of Richard the third in a parking lot. It seems only fair that the other side of the story if you will, be clarified by the DNA testing if possible of these Bons. One day, some king or queen will give permission for them to be tested and people of the future will know. I would be interested to know. If they can get enough DNA that is.
It would be fascinating. Perhaps one thing to consider is that the longer we wait, the more sophisticated testing is becoming and the more research is being found regarding their lives.
What is to be gained except finding a King of England that has been lost to history. Like testing the bones in the parking lot to find out if it was Richard III why would we not want to do the same and find Edward V and his brother?
Great point, Susan. I think because it’s been turned into such an infamous “who dunnit” that many would not be satisfied with provenance, but would still persist in the how, why, when and who. ANd that would be impossible to determine specifically from testing.