CHAPTER XII

The Bones in the Tower

1

IN THE month of July in the year 1674, when Charles II was King of England, some workmen were engaged in rebuilding the stone stairs which led from the royal chapel of St. John in the White Tower. This was one of the most beautiful of the chapels built by the Normans, but the walls were thirteen feet thick and the steps which led down to the river front had been planned to resist the endless passage of time. In consequence the workmen had to apply their tools with right good will. When they finally broke through at a point where the stairs led to the royal apartments, they found some bones under the masonry. The workmen, having small concern with history, threw them out carelessly on a pile of rubbish. The news spread rapidly, however, and it was believed that the bones must be those of the two princes. They were gathered up, together with much other material, including the remains of chickens, rabbits, sheep, and pigs, some rusty nails, and a few pieces of sandstone. By order of the king, they were sealed in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster.

More than 200 years elapsed before interest in the case of Historical Opinion versus Richard III developed to such a high pitch that it was believed the urn should be opened. This was done on July 6, 1933, and the bones were turned over to Professor William Wright, dean of London Hospital. The latter began an examination with the co-operation of Dr. George Northcroft, ex-president of the British Dental Association. They completed their work in five days and the bones were then gathered together again, wrapped in fine lawn, and replaced in the urn, The urn carries an inscription in Latin which translates as follows:

Here lie the relics of Edward Fifth, King of England and Richard, Duke of York, who, being confined in the Tower, and then stifled with pillows, were privately and meanly buried, by order of their perfidious uncle, Richard, the usurper. Their bones, long inquired after and wished for, after laying 191 years in the rubbish of the stairs (i.e. those lately leading to the Chapel of the white Tower), were, on the 17th of July, 1674, by undoubted proofs, discovered, being buried deep in that place. Charles II, pitying their unhappy fate, ordered these unfortunate Princes to be laid among the relics of their predecessors, in the year 1678, and the thirtieth of his reign.

On November 30, 1933, a report was read before the Society of Antiquaries, containing an historical review of the case prepared by Mr. Lawrence E. Tanner and the findings of Professor Wright. The latter expressed his belief that they were the bones of the two princes and that they had been killed at some time previous to the Battle of Bosworth. The case, it seemed, was closed. Richard was guilty.

There was quite a little excitement in the daily press and rather considerable satisfaction was manifested by historians and scholars who had supported the traditional view.

The satisfaction was not general, however. None of those who believed in Richard’s innocence, nor any of the larger body of scholars and readers who considered the case could not be solved, were convinced the last word had been said.

2

Without any thought of suggesting a lack of knowledge or care on the part of Professor Wright, there was a widespread feeling that it would have been more satisfactory if a board of authorities had been appointed to examine the bones. This, after all, was a matter of the utmost historical importance. And should not a longer period than five days have been devoted to the work? The bones had been buried under the masonry for many centuries: was there any pressing need to conclude the examination so quickly? In his report Professor Wright said of the photographs, “These were taken under great difficulties since it was not possible to remove the bones from the chapel.” No reason for the prohibition on moving was stated. The objection was raised at once that no regulations should have been allowed to stand in the way of getting the most complete information.

The conclusion might be reached from studying the report that the determination of age from a set of bones was a relatively simple matter, but many authorities do not agree with this. Dr. Thomas Dwight says in his The Range and Significance of Variation in the Human Skeleton, “No part of medical literature is so perfunctory, artificial and altogether unsatisfactory as medico-legal anatomy.” Dr. R. B. H. Gradwohl in his Legal Medicine says, “The whole subject of the delicate balance between bone formation and destruction is almost still as much of a puzzle as it was two centuries ago.” In Personal Identification, Bert Wentworth and R. H. Wilder say, “One must bear in mind, however, in all data resting upon development, whether of bone or teeth, that the dates for the events show some individual variation, in certain cases a considerable one, so that an age thus determined can be only approximate.”

Professor Wright bases his conclusions on three points. The first is a general survey of the teeth which, he states, “permit of Edward’s age being determined as somewhere between twelve and thirteen years.” There was, however, every indication of advanced osteitis, particularly in the skull of the older boy, and this would suggest an older age than that set by the examiners. Osteitis will retard the growth of the teeth from six months to a year.

The second point on which the case against Richard is built is that the axis cervical vertebra was without the apical part of its odontoid process. The third was based on a first sacral vertebra which showed the laminae still half an inch or so apart. In this connection Wentworth and Wilder say that “when the cartilage between two growing centres is entirely replaced and the pieces are in contact, a long time may elapse before they entirely fuse with each other.” The conclusions reached in the report do not make any allowance for the possibility of a long time lapse of this nature.

Nor is there any reference to the making of longitudinal sections with a saw on any of the long bones, a method which Thomas Gonzales in his Legal Medicines, Pathology and Toxicology speaks of as a desirable method of reaching conclusions as to age. This applies particularly to long bones, several of which were found complete.

In a survey conducted some years ago in the United States, a complete six-monthly radiographic record of the bone formations of several thousand healthy children resulted in some curious evidence. There was, for instance, the matter of the knees of three children which were so closely similar in point of development that they suggested the same age for each. One knee belonged to a mature six-year-old, one an average eight-year-old, and one a retarded ten-year-old! A general conclusion was reached from the survey that an average scale of maturation in the bones can be accepted but that it is impossible to tell the ages of children from bone formation without allowing a four-year variable (i.e., two years each way).

An outstanding American authority, Professor T. Wright Todd of California, was convinced that glandular conditions determined the maturing of children and that certain diseases will retard bone development from two to four years. He introduced a point of supreme importance in his Study of Skeleton Maturity by asserting that in ascertaining skeleton age hand and foot studies are indispensable.

In his report Professor Wright makes no mention of hands and feet.

It is unfortunate that any room for doubt was left. Those who take the traditional view are convinced, of course, that the results clear up the case. But it seems to an equally large body that the clouds of uncertainty have not been dispersed.

There is one factor which seems to weigh rather heavily in lay minds, although it is not referred to in the report. The bones indicate that both boys were very tall for the ages which Professor Wright assigns to them. The height of the older, Edward, is fixed at 57.50 inches and that of the younger at 54.50. In a Housebook of Hygiene, published in England in 1913, the average heights for both country and town boys were given as follows:

How many men of the present day could squeeze themselves into the suits of armor worn by the brave knights of old? Could many fifteenth-century men, even measuring from the tips of the “steeple” hats of Yorkist days, equal in height the normal man of today? Comparatively few, for the human race has increased very considerably in stature in the centuries which have intervened. It follows that the sons of these stocky men, the boys who wore the bright-colored gallygaskins of the fifteenth century, who swaggered with bows over their shoulders and attached polished bones to their shoes to make skates when there was ice on the ponds, were shorter than the boys of today, very much shorter. But the figures given above would indicate that Prince Edward was close to the average height of boys of fourteen, based on the 1913 scale. Allowing for the greater stature of present-day youth, it seems reasonable to place him at an age of at least fifteen years, which would mean that he could have lived into the first years of the reign of Henry VII.

There is always, of course, the possibility of individual variations from every rule and every scale, but to assume that both boys were so far in excess of the normal for their day would be to fly in the face of the law of averages.