The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed

by M.J. Trow

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?

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Mystery, True Crime, Medieval

248 pages, Hardcover

First published June 14, 2021

About the author

Meirion James Trow is a full-time teacher of history who has been doubling as a crime writer for seventeen years. Originally from Ferndale, Rhondda in South Wales he now lives on the Isle of Wight. His interests include collecting militaria, film, the supernatural and true crime.

Reviews

[Juliew. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This author seemed to be very pro ricardian and not a fan of Henry VII and didn't mince words about it.Just putting that out there.There are however some interesting theories in here.I liked how the author totally immersed himself in his subject,his writing and his willingness to get down and dirty with the suspect list.I think putting other people out there is a good thing but was this a plausible explanation for what happened to the princes?Possibly.Much thanks to Netgalley for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review.

[Bonnie DeMoss · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting take on the killer of the Princes in the Tower, referring to Prince and heir to the throne Edward V and his brother Richard. in 1483. The author lays out a good case for a never before suspected killer, but seems almost protective of the one who most benefited from their deaths, their uncle, Richard III.

I'm not sure this book convinced me, but they used 21st century investigative methods to propose a killer, and it was a job well done. The book moved slowly for me at times, but was still an interesting read.

I received a free copy of this book from the publishers via Netgalley. My review is voluntary.

[Melisende · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came to this from reading Trow's earlier book on Richard III - Richard III in the North - However, this tome 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. A person who had the holy trinity of means, motive and opportunity - a person who quite literally got away with murder. In fact, someone I myself had not considered!

I found this to be a 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 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 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!

[Don Gerstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was Sharon Kay Penman who first introduced me to Richard III, and from that time on I began to peek into his life through other authors. I always found it difficult to believe that it was his hand that caused the deaths of his nephews. When I found M.J. Trow’s book “The Killer of the Princes in the Tower,” I couldn’t wait to delve into his explanations of who the killer might be and why.

I say ”who the killer might be” because hundreds of years have passed and the odds of finding out the truth is lost in time (something the author readily admits). Regardless, Mr. Trow attacks this quest like a modern-day detective, though, plowing through all the possible suspects by explaining why each could possibly be the killer before shredding those possibilities. The final suspect is presented to us at the end, and the author carefully pulls aside each protective layer until one feels that there is no doubt that Mr. Trow has arrived at an obvious truth.

Along the way, readers will learn much about the people who lived during that period of time while detailing different events and sharing English history. Mr. Trow writes with a deliciousness that graces every page, drawing readers along a different path and possibly uncovering the truth of a centuries-old mystery. So much fun that one scarcely remembers that this is a history book! Five stars.

My thanks to NetGalley and Pen & Sword History for a complimentary electronic copy of this title.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The fate of the Princes in the Tower – Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York – remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of all time. Reportedly last seen in the grounds of the Tower of London in the summer of 1483, the disappearance of the two boys has divided historians ever since. Their uncle, Richard III, is the man most often accused of being responsible for their deaths, while the names of Henry VII and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham have also been suggested as possible culprits. In all three cases there is a logical political motive: to remove rival claimants to the throne. But what if the murder (assuming that it was actually murder) was not politically motivated at all? What if the princes were killed for an entirely different reason, by someone completely unexpected?

MJ Trow’s new book, The Killer of the Princes in the Tower, is subtitled A New Suspect Revealed, and I have to admit, when I first started reading, I was very sceptical about this. The Wars of the Roses and Richard III’s reign in particular is a period of history I’m very interested in and I’ve read a lot of books over the years, both fiction and non-fiction, that deal with the subject of the Princes in the Tower. Could Trow really come up with a ‘new suspect’? Well, yes he does – or at least, one that I can’t remember being suggested in any of the other books I’ve read.

If you have any prior knowledge of the period and the controversy surrounding the princes, it will probably be helpful, but if not Trow does provide plenty of background information, describing the whole sequence of events following the death of the boys’ father, Edward IV, and explaining how Richard III came to take the throne before the young Edward V could be crowned. He spends some time discussing the idea that the princes could have been secretly released from the Tower and not murdered at all – a theory some people believe is supported by the appearance a few years later of a ‘pretender’, Perkin Warbeck, claiming to be the younger of the princes, Richard of York – but (sensibly, in my opinion), he doesn’t consider this as a serious possibility. He then looks at all of the potential suspects one by one, presenting the evidence for each one being the murderer and then dismissing it, until only one name is left…

Trow approaches the mystery like a modern day police investigation, believing that no stone should be left unturned and looking for motive, means and opportunity. Beginning with the three most obvious suspects, he moves on to consider their supporters, servants and family members; even Richard III’s wife, Anne Neville, and the princes’ own mother, Elizabeth Woodville, are discussed – because, as Trow says, they would certainly have been interviewed by the police if the boys had disappeared today. He also examines the reliability of the various sources and what we can learn from them.

The revelation of the new suspect did take me by surprise because it’s not someone who would ever have occurred to me. It’s true that this person certainly had the means and the opportunity, but I wasn’t at all convinced about the motive, even though Trow devotes a whole chapter to drawing comparisons with other people throughout history who have killed for similar reasons. Although what Trow suggests is not impossible, I don’t think it’s very likely either and as far as I’m concerned the mystery remains unsolved! Still, it’s good to read a theory that is neither pro-Ricardian nor anti-Ricardian and that looks at the whole subject from a very different angle. I found this book almost as gripping as fiction, so despite not agreeing with the conclusion I still really enjoyed reading it.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Killer of the Princes in the Tower
By M J Trow
Reviewed March 10,2022


The Killer of the Princes in the Tower by M J Trow is a different look at that coldest of cold cases, the fate of the “princes” and provides us with a new suspect to consider.

Unlike some other books that suggest one or both of the boys survived, Trow believes that the boys did, indeed, die sometime during that summer of 1483, and not from natural causes but murder. And like in any good mystery, the main questions is “Who done it?” Was it the wicked uncle of legend, or one of the other usual suspects? Margaret Beaufort? Henry Tudor? Tyrell, Forrest and Dighton? Or...someone else?

Trow gets things started by discussing Shakespeare’s version of King Richard because whether we like it or not, this is still the version of Richard that most people think of when his name is mentioned. But Trow is not some anti-Ricardian; in fact, it is obvious that he has an overall favorable opinion of the king. This is further supported by the fact that he previously published a book titled King Richard III in the North which I haven’t read yet, but is in that never-ending to-be-read pile.

As this book is meant for general readers as well as those of us with a more specific interest, the author gets things going by providing a very brief overview of the Wars of the Roses and how these events impacted the House of York. This is written in a quick, easy style that doesn’t get bogged down with excessive details, but provides just enough information for the novice to the subject to understand what was going on and why. (I did find one small error in this section, one that doesn’t have any impact on the main subject, when Trow writes that Richard, Duke of York was with his family when Ludlow Castle was sacked.)

Along the way, Trow very effectively dismantles Shakespeare (who was never meant to be considered a historian, but was a playwright and entertainer). From there, we move to Sir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III, which from the opening paragraph is filled with inaccuracies and in spite of how many people claim it as such, should never be considered a primary source.

While on the subject of Sir Thomas, to all those who take the bones found in 1674 as proof of Richard III’s guilt because that’s where More said they were, Trow quite rightly points out that “Finding the bones at the foot of the staircase is exactly where More says there were not” because according to his History, the bodies were removed from their original burial place and reinterred in a more suitable, but unknown, place.

And since we’re on the subject of those bones now housed in an urn in Westminster Abbey, Trow takes on the 1933 analysis by Tanner and Wright with all its ludicrous conclusions and assumptions. For example, did you know that Tanner could “imagine” from a jumble of disarticulated bones how the bodies were placed in the chest, picturing “Edward... at the bottom on his back with possibly a slight tilt to his left, that Richard lay above him, face to face...”?

Now that we’ve got the background information laid out, and the crime described, it’s time to start looking at the suspects. We start with the usual suspects, Richard III, Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor, each looked at from a criminal investigation point of view. This means that for starters, we’re looking for three things. You know, those things we hear about in all those police procedurals we watch – means, motive, and opportunity. And it turns out that while our main suspects might meet one or two, no one meets all three. Or at least, none of the information we have about them answers all three, which suggests there might be a suspect we haven’t considered before.

With the usual suspect dismissed for one reason or another, it’s time to widen the search. Enter the new suspect...and if you don’t want to know who we’re talking about, read no further.

Okay, you’ve been warned, and if you’re still reading, you 1) probably already know who this new suspect is, or 2) you don’t know but don’t want to have to wait to read the book. So here goes. The new suspect is (drum roll, please) – Dr. John Argentine.

Contrary to what is written in some books, Argentine was not foreign born. The Argentines were Anglo-Normans, his being referred to as “a Strasbourg doctor” being a mistranslation of Argentinus medicus, although he did study abroad at Padua. In the section about Argentine, the author gives us a little bit of family background, Argentine’s education, and his eventual elevation to royal physician in charge of Prince Edward, only to have the carpet yanked from under his feet when Edward IV’s marriage was declared invalid, the princes reduced to Lords Bastard, and Richard of Gloucester being crowned king instead.

Did this upset Dr. Argentine? According to Trow’s research, Argentine was already a man more than a little full of himself. Did this change in fortune cause something to snap? At this point the author delves into case histories, both past and present, of doctors resorting to murder for one reason or another. As the world’s greatest consulting detective, Sherlock Holmes, once said, “When a doctor does go wrong, he is the first of criminals. He has the nerve and he has the knowledge.” And this is where Trow makes his case for Argentine being the perpetrator. But his crimes don’t stop with the murder of the princes in the Tower, and Trow likewise makes the case that Argentine was also behind the death of Prince Arthur at Ludlow, and the illness of his young bride, Catherine of Aragon.

But was he really guilty of these crimes (if crimes they really were)?

Serial killers have been around probably as long as humans have walked this earth. Although the term is relatively new, these people who for one reason or another have a need to take another life are not. Was Dr Argentine a 15th century “angel of death”, a serial killer who for reasons of his own purposefully ends the life of a person under his care? Could it have been a case of munchausen by proxy, in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care? Maybe both? Neither? Or Dr. Argentine may be perfectly innocent of any wrong doing, his proximity to royal deaths being little more than unfortunate coincidence. After all, doctors often lose patients. That’s just the way things go.

Whether Argentine is guilty or innocent, I admire M J Trow for being willing to think outside the box, because if a prince dies under suspicious circumstances that doesn’t mean the death was politically motivated.

[Lea · Rating 3 out of 5]

M.J. Trow presents a new theory in the endless discussion about the fate of the princes in the Tower, and it left me baffled.

First of all, it is very interestingly and well written, I could hardly put it down.
The author traces several theories about the disappearance and/or murder of the princes in his first two sections of the book, just to dismiss them. He introduces the usual and less usual suspects, writes about the bones found in 1674 and why they cannot be the bones of the princes, before writing about the new suspect noone before has really talked about. (I don't want to spoil this book for anyone, so I won't name the suspect. In my case, I was definitely not expecting the conclusion of the book.)

However, there are some things that really bothered me, thus only the three stars:

1) the lack of footnotes. As a history student, I like to retrace the author's thoughts, see where he got his ideas and citations from, in order to be able to look them up myself, especially with such a controversial topic. Because of my studies, being professional when writing history is important to me, and footnotes are a big part of that. Unfortunately, in my kindle version of the book (if the hardcover has footnotes please ignore this section of the review), there are absolutely none. This is especially unnerving when the author makes assumptions about the disposal of the bodies, claiming that this is what happened, without telling us where he got that information.

2) the lack of primary sources listed. The author did use primary sources and cited them, but I couldn't find them in his bibliography, which again, makes it impossible to trace his arguments, at the expense of his believability. While I do think his theory is plausible (if not plausible than at least very very interesting to read), the lack of primary sources and footnotes made me doubt a lot of the statements he made. (Again, if they only lack in the kindle version which I read, please ignore this section.)

3) sometimes the author portrayed certain events or characters in a far too simplified manner, which may cause misconceptions, misunderstandings or slight inaccuracies.

4) the author sometimes went off on tangents for far too long. For example, both midwifery and medieval schools are dealt with in great detail, which is interesting to read but feels irrelevant to the core of the book, making me skim these pages because I wanted to know the claim the author was trying to make with the book in the first place.

All in all: the book is highly interesting and a valid addition to the discussion about the mystery of the princes in the Tower. His theories are understandable and, in my opinion, plausible, however the lack of footnotes and listing of primary source material diminishes some of the credibility. Because of the easy and at times even funny writing style, it is a light while still educational read and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the princes in the Tower.

[Deyanira C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderfully good
After reading many books about the topic more specifically the mistery of the princes in the tower, I had really lost hope of finding a professional book about it, without bias and that really explore the facts without wanting to blame someone from the first page, well I can say that I finally found it.

First, I did notice that the author clearly sees some historical characters in a more positive way than others but he puts aside his personal opinion to present the facts in a frontal way, here we have one of the biggest problems with this period and is that we know little about certain facts, about others we know a lot or we think we know a lot but the information could well be the absolute truth, invented or simply wrong in interpretation, the author tries to guide himself with contemporary sources but takes them with caution and explains why, explaining the facts successfully and introducing us to those characters that are part of this story, here I must applaud him because unlike the great majority of historians, he doesn't go directly to blame Richard III, Henry VII or Henry Stafford, this author briefly and concisely analyzes all those people that today would have been considered witnesses but that were ignored at the time and that even today all authors completely overlook such as the wife of RIII Anne Neville, who can be completely discarded but she is still a person dangerously close to the events and with possible reasons that this author surprisingly analyzes, she is an example of how the author avoids overlooking things especially because he gives a modern approach, for example in this same sense he look at other women such as Margaret Beafourt and Elizabeth Woodwille he doesn't blame them but considers them , taking into account that at that time was believed that women did not kill children, what we know today is completely a lie, in that way using modern techniques and a fairly decent logic the author reaches a new suspect as the title indicates, is unexpected at least as far as I know this person was never considered but yes he has been mentioned in the matter, so I can say somehow is plausible. I will not reveal who the new suspect is but I will say that the first time I read about the cousins's war ​​also called the war of the two roses, I kept my jaw open the whole time and hit my forehead saying IT CAN'T BE ! , it seemed insane to me that such strange things and such unexpected turns occurred, but YES those things happened, so it is possible that neither RIII nor HVII were behind the death of the princes and that the motive was less political and rational than we think as this author's theory suggests, improbable? Maybe but it is possible and the author presents an incredibly well done entertaining and different case, personally I am not very in favor of his theory but I value it and take into consideration because NOBODY really knows and no one will ever know what happened to the princes in the tower, also the author never considered his theory an absolute truth and nothing more to say is a great book, less than 200 pages and I was surprised that he managed to develop such a complex subject in such a good way.

[Theediscerning · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm writing this not from my usual ignorance, for I do have some knowledge of the Richard III stories. I have performed for 3,000 at Bosworth; I walked past the King's coffin twice before he was re-interred. I certainly knew he was accused of murdering potential rivals for the throne, only for it to be rather irrelevant two years later. But I'd never read a book about those Princes, and never one claiming to have a new culprit to reveal.

To start with I certainly didn't think this was a perfect book for the ignorant novice I normally am – the thrusting on to the page of too many names, royal statuses and suchlike was not atypical of such books, I find. On the whole, however, with multiple Richards and other instances of repeated names this handles the problem fairly well. One other thing that was incredibly easy to spot was the author's cattiness – he snips at this recent historical writer, he scoffs at that anti-Ricardian viewpoint, he shoots down with much brevity this person counter to his thinking. I didn't think that the norm – but then, this book cries out for pages and pages of notes and gets none, so I can see the academic historian asking for a refund with multiple motive.

Oh, look, that word. Yes, the book is very well structured in being a solving of a historical case, in defining the life of the boys before their placement in the Tower of London, and of what happened during and afterwards, and then proceeding to summarise the charges for and against all the usual (and unusual) suspects. When it does boil down to the person being fingered here, however, I found another cause to have my eyebrows raised. I don't think the fact there are potential people on record as having done a similar thing would ever stand up in court, and I think this whole section rather awkward as a result. In chasing someone with motive, means and opportunity there is a great deal of logic behind the accusation made, but for this to really grab the general audience it really needed the "cor, you know what? I think he's got it!" feel, and this didn't have that. I could tell the author had immersed himself forensically and then some into the players in this story, and everybody who's discussed it in print since, but I sought the perfect storm of ideal subject finding its ideal author in vain. Three and a half stars from me.

And as a bonus, I was able to get thoughts from someone who knows a heck of a lot more than me – a close blood relative no less who was a long-time member of the RIII Society. When asked who she thought might be featured, she leapt on Morton, who is rather under-featured here. It's fair to say that without reading this she agreed with a couple of my thoughts – especially where the lack of notes is concerned – but remained in no small way intrigued at the character our author claims to have resurrected from the ignominy of history.

[Kara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: I received a free copy from Netgalley; the below review is my own opinion.

High marks for thoroughness and creativity.

I absolutely don't agree with Trow's conclusion of who did it, but I appreciate that he covered just about everyone in the known historical record of the time and weighed up the evidence of if they might have killed the princes in the tower. And by everyone, I mean everyone - he even goes through the possible evidence if Elizabeth Woodville was the killer! (To be fair, he decides she most likely was not.)

As well as examining everyone alive at the time, he also goes through the subsequent historians from the Tudor period up to today and what they thought of the crime, what prejudices and biases they might have, and how wrong or right he thinks they were. He gives similar treatment to the primary-ish sources we have of the event (including the bones from 1664), where that evidence came from, and if we can trust it.

He goes off on a few tangents, especially towards the end, but I was absolutely enthralled by Trow's reexamination of what he calls "the coldest of cold cases".

[Christine Cazeneuve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to NetGalley, the author and publisher for the e-ARC in exchange for my honest review.

This is a hard book to review without giving away spoilers. What I can say is the author has a terrific way of laying out his theory without it being weighed down and boring. The author leaves no stone unturned in his quest to find the answer to the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower.

He visits the main three - Richard III, Henry VII and The Duke of Buckingham as well as others who have been considered over time - but as the title suggests he introduces a new suspect and presents his reasons as to why he believes he is the murderer of those boys.

As someone who has read many books on the subject, I found this book to be truly fascinating and thought provoking. The end of the book has wonderful pictures as well.

[Anne Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the great mysteries of all time remains that of the Edward V and Richard of York, the "princes in the tower". While the Tudor propaganda machine convinced generations that the evil Richard III murdered his nephews, later historians have been reclaiming Richard's identity as a loving brother, a loyal and excellent soldier, and a king no more evil than any other of the time. But the question of the princes has always hung over him. Where did they go? Then, as now, a quiet disappearance generally can be assumed to equal death. If so, who killed them and why?

M J Trow's book does an excellent job of examining the sources (all of which are biased and none contemporary), the usual suspects (Richard III, Henry VII, and Harry of Buckingham), unusual suspects, and then Trow's vote for the killer. The examination of the usual and unusual suspects is excellent. The potential means, motives, and opportunities of each are examined and by the time you reach the end you are ready to believe that no one had a reason to kill the boys. At least, Trow argues, not a political reason. It's here where Trow starts to lose me. Partly it is the writing- huge sections are now devoted to examples of others in a similar position to Trow's suspect (I won't spoil it for you here) and how they did or did not get away with their crimes. Far more writing is given to this than I thought was necessary, but that is largely because Trow's suspect doesn't have that much written about him and there is little to actually be analyzed. We have no bodies, little writings by or about the man, and the claims are as much guesswork as any of the other potential suspects. Trow does make a few interesting connections by the end when Henry VII and his son Arthur are brought back into the story- although until making the connection at the end I couldn't figure out why we were now reading so much about young Arthur. Interesting ideas that, Trow admits, will never be proven or disproven, but certainly put an interesting angle on an often rehashed murder.

Well-researched, "The Killer of the Princes in the Tower' has a rambling tendency to take more side jaunts than it needs to, and I found myself occasionally confused as to how they connected to the main story- or why so very much needed to be written on those side stories and biographies. But overall an interesting read, particularly for Ricardians like myself who appreciate seeing a more historical and less "Tudor" approach to the life and legacy of Richard III.

I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

[Rebecca Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

The long debated question - Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?

Well, M. J. Trow tackles that question in this book, and I have to say, the suspect was NOT someone I was expecting to be named! I was completely blown away, but her analysis and theory makes complete sense.
I don't want to spoil it, and give the name of the suspect away (you have to read the book for yourself), but OH MY GOODNESS! How in the world was this person not thought of before? How did they escape scrutiny for so long?

Throughout this book, the writer takes us through the ups and downs of the Plantagenet and Tudor dynasties, the theories, main players, and usual suspects that come up when the disappearance of the two princes is discussed.
Now, I have long been a Richard III fan, and I could never come to terms with the thought that he could have been responsible. So, you can imagine my relief when he was not named. But, there were only a handful of people that COULD have been responsible, and had the access to the princes that the crime would have required.

I think that this new suspect opens a possibility, a new line of questioning. However, given that centuries have passed since the crime was committed, we are never fully going to know who was responsible. The tragic ending of the princes in the tower is going to remain a mystery until the end of times.

This book was truly enjoyable, and it gave me a lot of information - some newer crimes which were woven in to explain the suspect likelihood, as well as going through the materials that we know with a fine tooth comb. For those who enjoy this period in history, or love a good who dun it - then this book is for you!

Thank you to Pen and Sword books for a copy to provide my unbiased and honest opinion.

[Jean-Luc · Rating 5 out of 5]

In "The Killer of the princes in the tower", the coldest, the most frozen and the most unresolved cold case in English history, is given a new lease of life by the talented novelist and historian M J Trow who brilliantly turns the tables on all the historical certainties that we have been gullible enough to accept since 1483 about the still unexplained disappearance of Edward IV's boys. A contemporary approach to a missing person report that covers every single aspect of the case without for once exonerating any of the usual suspects gravitating around the throne at the time.
Judiciously presented, this new study rejuvenates the leads behind the story by planting seeds of doubt about the roles and motivations of all the people directly involved in all the political shenanigans. A successful 21st century investigation into a 15th century murder mystery....
A fresh and thrilling look at one of the most compelling mysteries of late medieval Europe that will definitely be welcomed by many history buffs. To be enjoyed without moderation!

Many thanks to Netgalley and Pen & Sword for the opportunity to read this wonderful book.

[Shannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was interested in reading this book because, like everyone who has ever watched "The White Queen," or read Alison Weir's "The Princes In The Tower," or Josephine Tey's "The Daughter Of Time," I wanted to know who killed these boys. I've developed my own theory over time. I have to hand it to M.J. Trow. He has introduced a suspect that I've never seriously considered. Before making his case, he examines many of the usual suspects and explains - in great detail - why he discounts them. He also disputes the arguments made by other historians and authors.

I enjoyed this book immensely. I can't say that he completely convinced me to change my mind, but I learned a great deal that I didn't already know. The depth of detail in this book alone is worth the read. But the author's obvious commitment to leaving no stone unturned sets this book apart from many others in the genre. If you love all things Richard III, the War of the Roses, the Plantagenets, or even the Tudors, I think you will enjoy this book. It definitely has an academic tone, but it's still quite entertaining.

I'm very grateful that NetGalley offered me a copy after I put this on my wishlist. It was a very enjoyable, and educational, read.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an unusual take on this great historical mystery. Trow delves into the myths about Richard III and his motives for becoming King. At times I felt that he was a bit too sympathetic, but his extensive research is unassailable, and the book is fascinating. He also goes through all the characters involved, and their possible motives for killing the young Princes, finally arriving at a strange conclusion, which I didn't find terribly convincing, although I don't think that Richard is to blame. I agreed with Trow's view on a certain question of ethics, however.

I thought that this book went off-topic and was too wordy sometimes. For example, I am not sure that we needed to know about the history of Eton, or about so many cases of modern murderers.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in King Richard III.

I received this free ebook from NetGalley in return for an honest review.

[Karen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was thoroughly researched and packed with information.
A fascinating read, that provided me with a new insight into this mystery.
I voluntarily reviewed an advance reader copy of this book.

[Joanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was really torn about whether to rate this book as three or four stars, but I opted for four for a few reasons.

First, whether the reader is just getting his feet wet or has some degree of background in the lore of the Princes in the Tower, author Trow did a good job of breaking down the suspects who have all been brought forward, from those considered the most likely to have done the deed to those who are considered more outsiders to have done so. Furthermore, he raises questions and pokes holes in the cases against all of these individuals, which is always good for consideration.

The flow of the book was also excellent. The order in which everything was presented was easy to follow, and what is apt to be good for those just learning about this era of English history, he provides just the most important facts and arguments so as not to get too bogged down in the details.

I don't want to spoil anything for those who have yet to read the book, but I also found his suggestion for who might have killed the princes to be an interesting one. I believe the author has a valid point in questioning why this individual has not been more readily suggested before, albeit, if the individual was involved, I personally think it could just as likely have been by accident than on purpose.

My issues with this book are threefold.

First, intentional or not, I felt Trow often came across as smug in his assumptions and beliefs, to the point of belittling arguments and interpretations of other historians. While the reader may have his own reasons for disagreeing with another historian's point of view, in most of the cases, the other historian's point of view/argument was simply different but no less valid than the opposing view put forth by Trow.

Trow also writes the book on the assumption that the princes were definitely murdered. He acknowledges that this might not have been the case but that he believes it is the most likely scenario. Personally, I found this off-putting, as I've read enough to suggest that very well might not have been the case.

Lastly, while he may in fact be correct, I did not find Trow's case against the individual he names as the murderer of the princes to be convincing. Maybe it's because the sole motive of the individual doing it because the individual could get by with it is just not satisfying. Nor do I find it convincing that the questions about the said individual would not have been raised within the time the princes were no longer seen until Bosworth. It seems odd that Richard would not have finally admitted the situation and pointed fingers. Furthermore, while Trow does not state this as fact, he does allow the suggestion that the individual may have already been in the employ of Henry VII, then just the Earl of Richmond. If that were the case, however, would Henry VII have continued to keep the individual in his employ and allowed the individual around his own child? And whether Henry VII knowingly did that or not, would further questions not have then been raised upon Arthur Tudor's death?

All told, it is an interesting read that fairly throws another name into the equation of the disappearance of the princes. How likely that individual is to have played a part in it is up to the reader and how convincing they find Trow's arguments.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Princes in the Tower was probably the first unsolved murder mystery I read in my early teens. Over the years I have read various theories that have been put forward as to what happened to the two brothers, admittedly the majority were steadfastly convinced that Richard III either murdered them or ordered their deaths. Personally I believe that had Richard III been involved to that extent, surely a more convenient explanation for their demise would have been given – died from an illness, accidentally fallen to their death, but for both to just vanish at the same time one day?

I do believe King Richard knew the truth of the boys’ fate but am on the fence on whether or not he actually ordered it – yes I do believe the boys either died or were murdered rather than the lesser argued theory that they were smuggled out and brought up by a person/s loyal to Ricard III; and even though the author also addressed both of these tangents and pretty much found reason to dismiss them, I am still of this opinion.

From reading the synopsis of the book I was intrigued by the idea that there was a new suspect with potentially a lot more motive as well as the means and opportunity than all the other suspects indicated through history but who has managed till now to fly under the radar. To do this the book has been split into 5 sections. The first was to give a general account of the known political situation and events that led to the two princes being imprisoned in the Tower, the second section provides a bit more detail of the main characters involved, especially those that would later be pointed at as having the best motives for the removal of the young princes in relation to evidence that has been gathered over time that a crime was committed.

The third section take an individual look at the three main (and most powerful) suspects, examining any evidence for motive, means and opportunity just like how a modern day investigation would examine its suspects, which leads into the fourth section – those that over time have been considered suspects but for one reason or other, were dropped due either to insufficient evidence pointing to or credible evidence against their possible guilt. Which leaves the fifth and last section which is dedicated to examining the evidence the author says points to the “New Suspect”. The author details a fairly plausible case of what could have happened – but is it what happened?

Could it be that this new suspect was the cause of possibly the oldest unsolved mystery in English history? If so it might also be the first case of the God Complex mentality in the suspect’s vocational field, which has been demonstrated in recent times by others in the same profession.

But the ultimate question is “why hide the bodies?” For each of the suspects the author examined, I don’t feel this question has been satisfactorily addressed why the bodies were made to disappear if they were the perpetrator, I feel that someone should still have seen either work happening at the foot of the tower or Trow’s argument of the suspect removing the bodies. So I still can’t possibly point my finger at any of the suspects and say with confidence that I believe he (or she) did it.

Overall 4.5 stars - I enjoyed the book, my only negative about it would be how the author would mention accounts that are anti-Ricardian or viewpoints that are contrary to his and then spitefully dismiss them, but if you can look past that, it is well researched work that would help balance arguments for and against Richard III's involvement in the fate of his two nephews.

Thank you #NetGalley and Pen & Sword Books for offering me a copy after I put this on my wish list.

[Annie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Originally posted on my blog: Nonstop Reader.

The Killer of the Princes in the Tower is a new look at the 600 year old mystery of the disappearance and probable murder of the young deposed King Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York. Due out 21st June 2021 by Pen & Sword, it's 248 pages and will be available in hardcover and ebook formats.

I enjoyed this true crime examination of a historical mystery which has captivated imaginations for centuries. Although undeniably a terrible tragedy, through the lens of the subsequent 600+ years, the horror and pathos gives way (somewhat) to historical interest. There have of course been numerous good historical accounts and I confess I was first drawn in and deeply affected by Josephine Tey's take on the case and moved into the Ricardian camp. I also followed the archaeological dig and reinternment of Richard III from an ignominious car park in Leicester to the cathedral there.

I found the author's style both accessible and interesting. Most histories begin with (as my professors used to say) telling the reader what the author is going to say, saying it, and then concluding with what they've just said. This book is more of a mystery style offering. The author gives a fairly comprehensive and understandable background of the political and cultural situations of the time as well as the major players. He follows up by examining (and discarding) the "usual suspects" who are generally regarded as culpable and includes an overview of the less likely culprits. He then introduces a (to-me) unexpected alternative and slowly builds up a compelling and plausible picture of what may very well have happened. The whole plot turns on its simple plausibility. It definitely *could* have happened as written.

I enjoyed the author's meticulous examination and correction of some inaccurate translations which have slowly ossified into accepted canon. One of the problems of necessarily writing and interpreting history based on later accounts (since much of the first person record is lost or destroyed) is that mistakes (and intentional misinformation) can easily creep in and be accepted and built upon by all that follows. Here, the author has stripped away much of the accepted history and at least tried to see it without the trappings which have built up over the last centuries.

It's not likely that we'll ever find incontrovertible proof one way or the other, but I'm really fascinated by the absolute logical plausibility of Trow's account of what might well have happened - as well as the staggering effects on history the guilty party might well have had, if the account is mostly true as written.

This would make a superlative selection for public or school library acquisition, home library use, or as a nice gift for a history loving reader. The language is accessible to older (post secondary school) age and up. The appendices include an abbreviated bibliography and index. The gallery of illustrations includes facsimile drawings of building layouts and photos of relevant buildings as well as portraits of some of the dramatis personae.

Thorough and compelling. Five stars.

Disclosure: I received an ARC at no cost from the author/publisher for review purposes.

[Heidi Malagisi · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 1483, King Edward IV’s family received a devastating announcement; the king in the prime of his life died, leaving the throne to his young son Edward V. However, neither Edward V nor his younger brother Richard of York would ever see the throne. Instead, they were taken to the Tower of London by their protector, Richard of Gloucester, for protection, never to be seen again. For over five hundred years, many theories have emerged about what happened to the princes in the tower and who might have possibly killed the boys. In MJ Trow’s latest book, “The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed”, he works hard to uncover the truth of what might have happened to the sons of King Edward IV.

I would like to thank Net Galley and Pen and Sword Books for sending me a copy of this book. When I first heard about this particular title, I was curious yet skeptical. There are so many books and theories about the princes in the tower. I questioned how this one would differ from those who are experts in this field. So, of course, I decided that I wanted to read this book to find out.

Trow’s approach to this case is to treat it like an investigation that modern police would do. First, we must examine the bodies or the lack of bodies in this case. Trow does mention the bodies that were found in the Tower in the 1600s and the examination of the bones in the 1900s. As it is hard to accurately determine if these are indeed the princes without further DNA analysis of the bones, Trow goes into what we know about the case, the actual facts from sources that he claims are dubious. He tends to use the works of Shakespeare and Thomas More quite a lot although he is hypercritical of both sources.

It is here where Trow actually presents his main discussion of the book; who was the killer of the princes in the tower. He starts with the usual suspects (Richard III, Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort, and the Duke of Buckingham), which he quickly dismisses. Then, Trow dives into the more obscure suspects. I actually found some of the people who he suggested ridiculous suspects because of who they were and their connections to the princes. I had never heard some of the theories he suggested in this section and I considered them a bit of a stretch. The person that Trow actually believes could have been the murderer is an intriguing character and he does make a compelling case for him committing the heinous act.

For me, it was Trow’s research and how he presented his case that was extremely poor when I was reading this book. I wanted Trow to move away from the more ridiculous suspects to focus on his main suspect and develop his theory. When he discusses his theory, he uses modern examples of similar cases to prove his point. I think he would have made a stronger case if he showed examples closer to the date of when the princes were killed.
In general, I found this book rather different than other books that are about the princes in the tower. There were some compelling theories and the suspect that Trow believes did the deed was not someone that I remotely considered. I think this book will definitely have people talking about this new suspect. If you want to know MJ Trow’s opinion about who he thinks killed the princes, consider reading “The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed.”

[Monica Babaian · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his latest book, true crime and mystery writer M. J. Trow introduces a new suspect in the murder Edward V and his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York--together known as the Princes in the Tower--sometime around the year 1483. Trow sorts through all of the usual suspects like Richard III, Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), and the Duke of Buckingham--among several others--who stood to benefit from the princes’ deaths, explaining the case for eliminating one suspect after the other. Finally, the author narrows down the list of suspects until he singles out an obscure priest who served as a doctor to Edward V and the Duke of York, and would later serve as physician to Arthur, the first son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, who also had a mysterious death. He cites a book that historian Audrey Williamson wrote in 1981 which also named the same doctor and priest as the murderer. However, Trow disagrees with Williamson about the motive behind the murder; this suspect was not motivated by personal gain, as one would normally expect, but because he suffered from the God complex.

Trow points to the suspect’s poetry, the size of his name written in books that he owned, and an elaborate tomb at King’s College, Cambridge as evidence of the doctor’s arrogance. The author consulted plays written many years after the murder, personal diaries, letters, and applied the modern investigation practice of identifying motive, opportunity, and means for each suspect. To support his argument that we must consider this new suspect, the author goes through several cases over the past centuries in which physicians murdered their patients, making a comparison between these doctors and the one supposedly behind the 1483 double murder.

The book includes a bibliography, index, and paintings of York, Woodville, and Tudor family members (among others), images of the Tower of London, its layout, and other buildings that are significant to this story.

This is a well-researched and written book that I would recommend to anyone interested in British history, particularly the War of Roses and the Tudor family history.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Princes

An engaging, interesting read for history fans. If you don't read many history books then you might get bogged down with some info and dates like I did. I found it hard to remember and keep up with all the 'Richards' and different titles. It's a compelling read and provides a lot of background for those with no prior knowledge of this time.The motives and means of the potential suspects are explained thoroughly.

However, the author does go off on a tangent at times and provides extensive possibly unnecessary detail e.g. Explaining how some murderers got away with it for so long and very extensive information about Arthur Tudor. It may be a way of providing background but it was off the topic of the book. Was it filler or just the author's passion for the subject?

I thought that the new suspect in the end was an intriguing idea but with the lack of sources to support his theory surely it was just his opinion and I didn't really accept it and thought if that individual was the culprit maybe it could've been accidental rather than the actions of a psychopath. I don't know enough about this suspect to know if his theory is correct.

The author does a good job of investigating but as he himself admits there is no evidence so the mystery will remain unsolved.

[Lissa00 · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. This book takes a forensic look at the mysterious disappearance of the two child princes (Edward V and Richard) from the Tower of London in the fifteenth century. The history is fascinating and the author does a good job of laying out all of the facts. The case against the murderers being Richard III or Henry VII is also convincing and believable and my favorite part of the book is when all of the possible suspects are described and then eliminated. I'm not sure that there is a convincing case presented against the person the author believes is responsible and it felt a bit like a huge stretch, but we'll never really know so it is possible, I guess. Overall this is a fun look at an extremely cold case. I received a digital ARC of this book through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

[Nina · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a pretty good overiew of everything we know, don’t know , and can speculate on about this historical mystery. What takes it from a 4 star review to a 3 star are 2 things: first there are far too many lengthy tangents that have little if anything to do with the case and second and more egregious, while I am perfectly happy to entertain the idea that the suspect named here could have killed the princes, the motivation for their murders is ridiculous. If the author has suggested that the princes were accidentally poisoned by their doctor while treating them for something or other (given the state of the art of 15th century medicine), I’d be completely on board. But claiming he did it “because he could” and that he also purposely poisoned Prince Arthur for the same reason? Yeah, no thanks.

[Krista · Rating 2 out of 5]

"The Killer of the Princes of the Tower" is a walk-through of the various potential suspects of killing the famous boys.

What's good: It IS an overview of the various reasons to think both the main players guilty and those associated with them. It considers everyone, even the most unlikely. (For example, Elizabeth of York.)

What's iffier: The new suspect revealed. It's really a what-if scenario for which the author has no evidence. The best I can say is that the author is putting into words a possibility not really considered previously--but there's no real evidence, again, the scenarios painted are outrageously specific for (again) a theory with no evidence, and there's no consideration of how we're more likely to have a bizarre out of left field answer for the death of two VERY politically significant boys than a politically relevant one.

[Maria Pilar Cambra Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an occasional true crime fan with a passing interest in history, this was a pretty satisfying read. The author is a very clear writer, he explains the convoluted politics of the time very well and then he breaks down the main suspects be they plausible or implausible one by one and argues the points for and against their guilt. I think the least interesting aspect of this book is the author's theory about who actually did the deed (if indeed the deed was done!), but along the way and in defending his theory you learn an awful lot about the times and history and many other aspects of the crime of murder. Instructive, informative even if the author's main hypothesis is incredible...

[Ophelia Sings · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an ardent Ricardian (and fan of MJ Trow's previous book on the oft-maligned king) I thoroughly enjoyed this deep dive into the possible killer of the Princes in the Tower. Trow's meticulous research throws up a surprising new candidate, and it's a pretty compelling argument - certainly one that hadn't occurred to me, but Trow's elegant and entertaining investigation makes it all seem incredibly plausible.

A thoroughly rewarding, enjoyable read.

My thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Cat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, but all speculation. I think bodies and dna testing would need to be done, if and when bodies are ever found, and also either a confession/account of is found somewhere in a journal might solve mystery. But until either of those, I'm afraid it all is speculation. I did enjoy the book however. Sad story about brutal power struggles. Not a bad read at all.

I received a Kindle arc from Netgalley in exchange for a fair review.

[Norma · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a lot of books over the years but never really read any on the princes, only just seen them in passing in other books. So this was my first book on the centuries-old mystery of what happened to the two English princes. The author puts forth a good view of the subject and I found it extremely interesting.