PRINCES IN THE TOWER: A DAMNING DISCOVERY: PROFESSOR TIM THORNTON AND DR TRACY BORMAN: ‘A SMOKING GUN’ OR A SHOOTING OF THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT?

Professor Thornton shows Jason Watkins and Dr Tracy Borman his ‘new discovery’  that no one has ever seen before but only they have….  Channel 5 Documentary ‘Princes in the Tower: Damning Discovery’

Where to begin…should I even do so?  But needs must….   Around early November 2024 it had begun to be mooted about on social media that Dr Tracy Borman, author, historian and co-curator of Historic Royal Palaces would soon announce an amazing discovery including  damning evidence that would prove that King Richard III had indeed murdered his nephews, Edward V and Richard duke of York.   All would finally be revealed on the 3rd December when a Channel 5 documentary entitled Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery, co-presented with Professor Tim Thornton and actor Jason Watkins, was finally broadcast.  Jason Watkins is an interesting choice of co-host being extremely likeable, affable and, with an air of honesty about him, a throughly good egg.  Was he chosen for these very attributes so as to lend an air of integrity to the documentary ?  Although a fine actor he comes across as not being particularly au fait with the period,  accepting all  ‘evidence ‘ without question and accompanied with quite a bit of Oooohing and Aaaahing.

 Jason went on to mention that the story of the Princes has fascinated him since childhood although any research he may have made into the story must have been rudimentary  because if he had done so he would have been aware that it is far from certain that ‘two children have been murdered’ as he emphatically states.   He further expounds on the matter – unfortunately –  ‘but Richard was not content to be just  Lord Protector – he crowned himself king – and the princes were never seen again’.….Yikes!   Just prior to the broadcasting of the programme a statement was issued by the Richard III Society followed by a post on the https://riiiresearch.blogspot.com which I will return to later.  In the interim interested parties  would wonder what on earth this ‘damning evidence‘ could possibly be.  Was it perhaps a newly discovered letter penned by Richard on the eve of Bosworth in which he finally owned up to the slaughter of his brother’s two young sons but he had been between a rock and a hard place and had no choice? Or perhaps a diary entry written by his mother, Cecily Neville,  revealing that she had known all along that her son had done in his two nephews but it had been cruel necessity?  Or maybe an admission from Bishop Robert Stillington that he had fabricated the evidence that he had presented to Parliament in 1483 proving the pre-contract, i.e. marriage,  between Edward IV and  Lady Eleanor Butler née Talbot?   Or had Sir James Tyrell’s confession finally been unearthed? What on earth could it be?  

Finally the documentary was broadcast enabling us to look at each presenters input…

Photo with thanks to the National Archives.

Professor Tim Thornton, Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of Huddersfield, announces a ‘new discovery’ to an incredulous Borman and Watkins.  “You are the first people to see this”.    Oh dear.   He then indicates a large tome that contains the will of Margaret,  Lady Capell (d.1522), widow of Sir William Capell (b.1448-d.1515) (1).  

How exciting…. if only it were true…

This would be a good place to point out that far from being a ‘new discovery‘ the will has been known about since at least 1826 when it was published with other old wills in Testamenta Vetusta edited by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicholas (2).   Furthermore that was not the only occasion mention has been made of it : ‘In 1906, William Minet quoted Margaret’s bequest of Edward V’s chain in the introduction to an article on the Capell family.  In 1994, Diana Scarisbrick mentioned many of Margaret’s jewellery bequests, including Edward V’s chain, in a survey of fashions in late medieval jewellery. In 2015 Dr Susan James referred to it in the context of women’s voices in Tudor wills. She gave it as an example of women handing on relics with royal associations which ‘burnished the memory of the giver by announcing her associations with monarchy’. Professor Barbara Harris also used the will extensively in 2002 in a discussion of women’s pious bequests. There are probably others, but no previous scholar seems to have suggested that it provided any link with Sir James Tyrell… ‘   (3).  

Anyway to return to the documentary –

 “Wow!” exclaims Dr Borman…’ A chain of office –  of the king!?“.  ‘Yes!“ replies Professor Thornton despite the glaring fact that no description of the chain was given in the will  in glaring contrast to descriptions of the other gold chains bequeathed in the same will (see below).  Could this mean it was not too significant?  It should also be noted that ‘chains of office’ were more commonly known as collars.  This point is addressed  in a post on the Richard III Society research blogspot: ‘Noblemen typically owned various chains but the objects we might think of as chains of office were usually called collars. We do not know if Edward V had been king for long enough to acquire a personal chain associated with his status as king and it is unlikely that he would have been wearing one when held securely in the Tower. It also seems unlikely that Richard III would have chosen to reward Tyrell with such a distinctive relic of their shared crime since Tyrell could hardly have displayed his ownership without awkward questions being asked’ (4).   However one cannot let facts get in the way of a good story.   The chain mentioned in the will has now absolutely morphed into a Chain of Office and in a voiceover Jason Watkins announces that  ‘extraordinarily the will states that this chain of office once belonged to King Edward V,  the older of the princes in the Tower.  This ‘royal chain’ would have been completely unique to Edward and should never have been in private hands’.  Give Me Strength.  

The chain – of which no description was given in the will  – has now morphed into ‘King Edward’s royal chain of office’  as well as being ‘distinctive’ ...  

Anyway to continue…. This statement by Watkins is odd because Prof Thornton in a paper published in October 2024, shortly before the documentary,  clearly states that ‘…...it may be that the chain changed hands as part of a purely or largely financial transaction when the young king’s attendants and potentially some of his possession were being dispersed in the summer of 1483′ (5).   This contradiction leaves Professor Thornton somewhat hoisted by his own petard.

DR TRACY BORMAN

Worse still was to come when Dr Borman informs the viewers that she has discovered something extraordinary – which transpired to be the oft quoted report made by Dr John Argentine, the princes doctor,  describing Edward’s state of mind and that the young king like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him.   You really couldn’t make this up but then again it appears you could.   Rather than Dr Borman discovering Argentine’s narrative it has been freely available since 1934 when Mancini’s manuscript was discovered by historian C A J Armstrong.    Armstrong then went on to edit and publish his translation –  The Usurpation of Richard the Third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium Libellus – with a new updated translation by Annette Carson – Domenico Mancini de occupatione regni Anglie – published in 2021.    It is most astonishing and atrocious in equal measure when historians so publicly and blatantly ignore other historians/academics work in such a cavalier manner as this.

Rant over and moving on from this what did Professor Thornton conclude from Margaret Lady Capell’s will? – see the relevant part here:

‘Also I bequeth to my sonne sir Giles his faders cheyne which was yonge kyng Edwarde the v^th. To have the forsaid stuffe and cheyne during his lyfe w^t reasonable weryng upon the condition that after his decease I wille that yt remayn and be kept by myn executours to the use of Henry Capell and Edward Capell  from one to another And for defaulte of thise two childern I wille that my doughter Elizabeth Paulet shalhave the forsaid goodes….‘

Prof Thornton points out that  Margaret Lady Capell was sister-in-law to Sir James Tyrell  who has been, thanks to the sainted Sir Thomas More, unjustly accused – for what seems centuries –  of  the ‘murder’ of the two princes without any evidence other than a dodgy confession –  i.e. Tudor propaganda –  that no-one has actually ever seen.  Now ‘discover’ that evidence Dr Borman and Prof Thornton and you will have just reason to crow!   I won’t go into More’s lurid account of Sir James Tyrell here as it has been well discussed elsewhere.  Suffice to say that it is, in the main, totally implausible including the mention that Richard III –  who sitting on the toilet at the time – yes I kid you not –  did not appear to know who Tyrell was and a lowly page had to introduce them with is totally erroneous as well as daft.  To be fair to Sir Thomas though, he did point out, that at the end of the day,  no-one actually knew for sure what had happened to the boys – ‘some remain in doubt whether they were in his ( Richard’s) day destroyed or no.. ‘ and that he was merely repeating gossip blah blah blah – but that point is conveniently ignored by those who wish to hurl mud at a long dead king.  And there you go.  But I digress and back to the documentary.   Conveniently ignoring the fact that the chain had earlier belonged to her deceased husband, Sir William, Professor Thornton then arrives at the conclusion that Lady Capell had acquired the chain via Sir James Tyrell, who was her brother-in-law being married to her half sister Anne Arundel –  both of them sharing the same father.  Ergo this somehow proved that Tyrell was indeed involved in the murder of the two princes and that is how he acquired the chain.  It’s easy to lose the will to live at this point but plod on I must.   Matthew Lewis in a letter in the March edition of the Ricardian Bulletin puts it succulently : ‘The will explicitly states the chain belong to Sir William Capel before his death not to his wife, Lady Margaret.   This dilates the connection Professor Thornton is attempting to build with James Tyrell.  Sir William was a money lender who took numerous pieces of jewellery as security for loans to a multitude of people. There is not even a hint of who it came from to link it to Tyrell or how it came into Sir Williams possession so we don’t know where it come from.   A further question that lingers is whether the chain ever did belong to Edward V.  There is no proof of that it did and it wouldn’t be the first family heirloom to be gifted a dodgy pedigree to inflate its value either sentimental or financially. Maybe someone conned William into loaning more against it by pushing this story. So we don’t know if it really belonged to Edward V (6).  

Now here’s a thing.  Disappointingly Professor Thornton, so quick to capitalise on the link between the Capells and Sir James Tyrell,  conveniently omits to mention another even more important link – that of the Capells with the Grey family/Marquesses of Dorset.   Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquess of Dorset  (b.1477-d.1530) was godfather to Sir William and Lady Capell’s grandson, Henry.   Thomas Grey was the son of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset (b.1451-d.1501).  Now Thomas Grey, the 1st Marquess, was half brother to Edward V and Richard duke of York.  He was also the owner of Coldridge in Devon, where there is a strong theory, admittedly unproven at this stage but I live in hope, that Edward V was sent to live out his life there incognito known as John Evans.  Therefore if the chain had actually once belonged to Edward V it may well have passed through the hands of Thomas Snr  to the Capell family, perhaps via Thomas Jnr,  taking into consideration the link between them.   Unproven though it is I believe that the Coldridge theory has more substance to it than the flimsy nonsense put out in this rather absurd documentary but that of course would not fit everybody’s agenda. 

Regarding Professor Thornton suggestion that Sir James Tyrell was involved with the murder of the two princes.   It is highly possible that rather than murder them he actually escorted the younger boy from England to Flanders.   It’s known that towards the end of 1484 Sir James, this ‘ right trusty knight for our body and counsaillour ‘ was sent by Richard III  ‘over the See into the parties of Flaundres for diverse maters concernying gretely oure wele’ (7).   Was this task escorting the young Richard duke of York to the continent where he may have surfaced later as Perkin Warbeck? 

The Tyrell Crest.  A Boar’s head with peacock feathers issuing from its mouth.  15th century glass from the great east window Chapel of St Nicholas Gipping. Photo thanks to Gerry Morris @ Flikr

SIR WILLIAM CAPEL/CAPELL (c.1446-1515)

An interesting life.  Seriously rich he had many ups but a few downs too including in 1478 being in ‘custody for vilifying alderman Robert Drope’, ‘Imprisoned in the Tower for refusing to pay a fine of £2000 imposed for ‘failing to punish a false coiner; and finally for ‘supposed negligence during his mayoralty in 1504′ (8).  Not sure what Dame Margaret thought about that but it must have been interesting.   Twice Lord Mayor of London 1503-1504 and 1510,  served as  MP for the City of London 1491-2, 1512-4, 1515.  A member of the Worshipful Company of Drapers,  Alderman, his London home in Bartholomew Lane stood close to where the London Stock Exchange stands today and his name is still remembered today in nearby Capel Court.  He owned numerous other properties including Hadham Hall, Hertfordshire. Most interestingly he loaned money,  sometimes on the security of jewellery,  to various notables including to Henry VII’s wife, Elizabeth of York,  which was repaid in May 1502,   John Howard later duke of Norfolk and Lady Alice Fitzhugh, mother-in- law of Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell.  (9).   It was by falling foul of Morton, Empson and Dudley by pluckily resisting their ‘exhortations’  to pay an enormous fine of £2000 that he was committed to the Tower where he was when Henry VII’s death in 1509 led to a pardon and freedom by Henry Jnr.  

He financed the building of a chapel on the south side of St Bartholomew by the Exchange where he was laid to rest after his death on September 6th 1515.  St Bartholomew by the Exchange was one of the churches destroyed in the Great Fire of London 1666.  It may be that Sir William’s remains were left undisturbed when the church was rebuilt in 1683.   However they were most certainly lost when this new church was demolished in 1840.  His will can also be found in Testamenta Vetusta but contains no mention of the chain (10).  

MARGARET LADY CAPEL/CAPELL

Lady Margaret survived her husband by several years dying in 1522.  Little did she know how much interest her will would evoke over five hundred years later.  Although she gave no desciption of the chain said to have belonged to Edward V she did go into more detail over other chains and jewellery.   Her will,  copies of which can be downloaded from the National Archives, is too difficult for me to decipher but the excellent riiiresearch.blogspot has the descriptions of the jewellery and chains mentioned in it:

To her daughter a gold chain bearing a rose of diamonds and three pearls; her son in law a long chain of fine gold with a long cross with a ruby; to her grandaughters a flat chain of worked gold with a cross set with a ruby and diamonds, a lesser flat chain hung with an agnes dei; to her grandson Edward she bequeathed a gold chain of twenty seven long links which she had brought from ‘one Rydley my lord of Kents servant’.  In most cases the weight of the item was also included (11). 

So it can clearly be gleaned from the above that chains of all types and value were a commonplace item of adornment among those fortunate to be able to afford them.  Margaret left the chain described as once belonging to Edward V to her son Sir Giles Capell.  Thereafter it disappeared into the mist of time.   

This image of Edward V from the window of Coldridge Church shows him wearing what look like fairly simple chains which clearly are not Chains of Office.  Therefore care should be taken not to automatically assume because a chain had once belonged to Edward that it was a Chain of Office.    Photo thanks to John Dike leader of the Missing Princes Project, Coldridge, Devon.

1. Doc ref: PROB 11/19 National Archives.   
2. Testamenta Vetusta.  Being Illustrations From Wills, of Manners,Customs, &c. As Well As Of The Descents And Possessions of Many Distinguished Families p.594. Ed. Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas.
3.  riiiresearch.blogspot.com Tuesday 10 December 2024  
4. riiiresearch.blogspot.com Tuesday 10 December 2024.

5. Sir William Capell and a Royal Chain:  The Afterlives (and death) of King Edward V: A Material Survival from Edward V’s Personal Effects, and Its Implications for Memories of the ‘Princes in the Tower’. Professor Tim Thornton. 

6.  Ricardian Bulletin March2025 p.40. Edward V , the Capell Chain and that Smoking Gun…..
7.  Harleian MSS 433
8.  History of Parliament 1439-1500 Biographies p.153. Josiah C Wedgwood. Published by His Majesty’s Stationery Office 1936.
9. Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York p.12. Editor Sir Nicolas Harris Nicolas 1830.
10. Testamenta Vetusta p.532. Editor Sir Nicolas Harris Nicolas 

11. riiiresearch.blogspot.com Tuesday 10 December 2024.