My initial reaction of disbelief to the new ‘revelations’ regarding the Princes in the Tower has not changed, even after viewing the Channel 4 program on US Public TV. In fact, that program was just embarrassing. There is no doubt the documents discovered and viewed are authentic and from the time period in question. Of course, Maximilian provided troops and supplies. Yes, Perkin Warbeck promised the ruler of Saxony he would repay his loan of three hundred thousand florins (worth about $3.4 million dollars in today’s money). Yes, Warbeck signed documents “Richard of England”. These are indisputable facts.

However, these documents are not proof the princes lived. Can anyone explain to me how the actual Richard, Duke of York, assuming he escaped from the Tower of London, was in possession of a royal seal at the age of nine years old?  And, after traveling all over Europe as a young child, how did he still have that seal to sign and authenticate a document in his later years? They never raised this question in the program. And Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy naming a room in her palace ‘Richard’s room’ is not proof the actual prince lived.

The dialogue in the scene at the site of the Battle of Stoke Field was a bewildering muddle. Was it a ten-year-old boy at the battle? Or was it the sixteen-year-old King Edward V? The chronicles are also confused as Lambert Simnel claimed at first to be the second son of King Edward IV, Richard, Duke of York. When there were rumors that Edward, Earl of Warwick, (someone who actually did have a claim to the throne), had died, Simnel (or those who promoted him) proclaimed him to be Warwick. At no time did the boy profess to be King Edward V. This is really an unbelievable stretch by the presenters.

The scene with the biographer of Perkin Warbeck was particularly surreal. Reciting a story straight out of historical fiction, she made the events seem totally unbelievable. The look on the lawyer’s face was priceless. What I found most egregious is how the entire program was presented without any historical context whatsoever.

The life and times of these pretenders and the noblemen and rulers who promoted him must be taken in context. In order to spook King Henry VII, the ruler of a new dynasty, they all had their own personal agendas. If Perkin Warbeck really was the true king, why did nobody rise up in support of him in his three attempts to invade England? The story of Warbeck in particular had an element of implausibility.  But it really did happen and it’s one of the reasons history is so intriguing and fun.

I would urge everyone to read Nathen Amin’s latest book, “Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck and Warwick”.  This is a measured, even handed account of what really happened regarding the men who feigned being the missing Princes in the Tower, putting them in their proper context in history.