In 2005, Channel 4 produced a fascinating docu-drama, called Princes in the Tower, based on the trial of Perkin Warbeck, for so long labelled as a pretender to King Henry VII's throne as Richard Duke of York, the younger of the Princes in the Tower.
Although based on just one of the many theories about what could have happened at Warbeck's trial, the drama gives a fascinating insight into what could have happened in Warbeck's last days. It is known that he was definitely executed as Perkin Warbeck, but it is how that has eluded historians since.
The drama itself finds Henry VII's mother setting Warbeck up, threatening to produce two pretenders of her own as the Princes unless he dropped his claim. Also based on the writings of Thomas More, the drama really does set the mind at work, and makes one wonder whether there is any chance Warbeck really could have been Richard, Duke of York.
The Tudors - No Strangers to Pretenders
Since defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Henry VII had had to deal with one pretender before Warbeck appeared. Henry VII's own claim to the throne was weak; his mother's family descended from an illegitimate child of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. With this weak claim, he was bound to attract powerful Yorkist enemies, who had grounds for complaining of Henry's illegitimacy. J
ust two years after Bosworth, Lambert Simnel appeared on the scene, his supporters claiming him to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, a Yorkist claimant who had recently been imprisoned in the Tower by Henry. The claim gathered the support of the Irish, strong Yorkist sympathisers, and the Yorkist Earl of Lincoln.
However, the rebels were soundly defeated at the battle of Stoke, and Henry was able to produce the Earl of Warwick as proof that Simnel was an imposter. The leading supporters were executed, and SImnel himself was put to work in the royal kitchens. Henry's claim made his position very weak, and he had powerful enemies in Europe, one of course being the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy, sister of the last Yorkist king, Richard III.
Perkin Warbeck's Rebellion
The story everyone is taught to believe is that Perkin Warbeck hailed from the Belgian town of Tournai. At some point he was taken from obscurity, first claiming to be Richard, Duke of York in Burgundy in 1490.
The location made sense, as the Duchess of Burgundy was the aunt of the Princes, and she openly took him to be her nephew. Over the next few years Warbeck toured Europe to gain support, being present at the funeral of the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick III. He first landed on English soil in 1495, but over the next few years was to find little success.
He was eventually captured in 1499. Although his eventual fate is known, no records of his trial survive, and that is where a programme like Princes in the Tower comes in, hoping to shed some light on what could have happened.
Could Warbeck's Claim have been Genuine?
One is taught to believe that Warbeck was simply another pretender to the throne, but if one looks at the facts, is such a conclusion really that simple? Many claimed that Warbeck bore a strong resemblance to his 'father' King Edward IV, and according to Thomas More, he was 'more of of a prince than I have ever known', suggesting he had the aire of authority and royalty.
Henry himself perhaps never believed Warbeck's story, but that is not the point. The fact is, unlike with Simnel and the Earl of Warwick, he had no genuine Duke of York to unveil as proof of Warbeck's trick, and as the remains of the Princes had never been found, there was no proof to counter the claim. What is more, it is known that Perkin Warbeck was hanged as a commoner with that name, as he read out a confession denouncing his claim and saying that it was all just a hoax.
How did this confession come about? Princes in the Tower claims Warbeck was faced with a counter-claim, forged by Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mother, and that if he were to continue his struggle, his family would suffer the consequences. Warbeck then had no choice but to give up. So, was this confession genuine? It would have been very easy to have simply tortured him and drawn a confession that way. Certainly, the Duchess of Burgundy never wavered in her claim that Warbeck was indeed her nephew, even after Warbeck's execution.
Many people insist that the Princes in the Tower were murdered, despite no proof that even happened. With this in mind, arguably a long shot though it is, can one really dismiss Warbeck as just another pawn of royal enemies, or something more. It is perhaps too easy to say that Warbeck's claim was simply a hoax, as little is known of Warbeck the man. This then, means Warbeck's story can only be assumed...yes, assumed.
Sources
Princes in the Tower (2005) Channel 4
Kings & Queens of England (1998) edited by Antonia Fraser
The Curious Career and Uncertain Past of Perkin Warbeck
Tom Carter - Hi guys! I'm Tom, and I hail from Bedford, UK. My main passions in life are sports (in particular Football, Athletics and Darts), ...
