Review: The Killer of the Princes in the Tower by MJ Trow

Synopsis: The disappearance of two boys during the summer of 1483 has never been satisfactorily explained. They were Edward, Prince of Wales, nearly thirteen at the time, and his brother, Richard of York, nearly ten. With their father, Edward IV, dying suddenly at forty, both boys had been catapulted into the spotlight of fifteenth-century politics, which was at once bloody and unpredictable.

Thanks to the work of the hack 'historians' who wrote for Henry VII, the first Tudor, generations grew up believing that the boys were murdered and that the guilty party was their wicked uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Richard crowned himself King of England in July 1483, at which time the boys were effectively prisoners in the Tower of London.  After that, there was no further sign of them.

Over the past 500 years, three men in particular have been accused of the boys' murders - Richard of Gloucester; Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond; and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. The evidence against them would not stand up in a court of law today, but the court of history is much less demanding and most fingers remain pointed squarely at Richard of Gloucester.

This book takes a different approach, the first to follow this particular line of enquiry. It is written as a police procedural, weighing up the historical evidence without being shackled to a particular 'camp'. The supposition has always been made that the boys were murdered for political reasons. But what if that is incorrect? What if they died for other reasons entirely? What if their killer had nothing to gain politically from their deaths at all?  And, even more fascinatingly, what if the princes in the Tower were not the only victims?

And that there, readers, is the hook that will send you down the proverbial rabbit hole.

I came to this from reading Trow's earlier book on Richard III - Richard III in the North - this tome, however, covers the mystery of the princes in the tower. Using the time honoured technique of analysing means, motive and opportunity, Trow posits the question - qui bono? Who benefits?

Trow sets forth his case utilising methods familiar to anyone who has watched or read a police procedural, court room drama or forensic investigation. As the with any suspicious death, he looks at those closest to the victims - the most obvious suspects (Richard III and Henry VII), some lesser suspects (the adherents, the family) before putting forth one who he considers highly likely and almost unanimously overlooked suspect. A person who had the holy trinity of means, motive and opportunity - a person who quite literally - if it was them - got away with murder, and possibly others. In fact, someone I myself had not even considered!

I found this to be a most compelling read - it covers off the period of the Wars of the Roses, the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III, Bosworth, and the succession of Henry VII, the mystery of the princes and the pretenders rather succinctly without bogging the reader down in a mire of dry information overload (or information dump). There is enough here for even the most casual reader to follow without having to take a crash course in medieval history.

Whether you agree or disagree with Trow's conclusions, this makes for some thought-provoking reading - who knows, maybe there is another unconsidered suspect lurking in the shadows that no-one has considered ... after five centuries, nothing is conclusive but nor should it be dismissed for not following the two "standard" lines of thought.

Definitely one for my own library!