The idea that Warbeck may have been all that he claimed is attractive to many revisionists, because if the Duke of York was alive in 1491 then surely Richard could not have killed him in 1483. However, it can also be argued that the reverse is true and that Warbeck’s confession is as beneficial to Richard’s reputation as it was to Henry’s.

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in British Heritage magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

Allowing that Perkin Warbeck really was the Duke of York opens the door to some interesting consequences. First, his identity as the true Duke would validate his original testimony, made before his capture, that his brother was, in fact, murdered–not sent to a safer location or dead of natural causes. In addition, his own life, he said, was due to the spontaneous compassion of an un-named executioner, not to the foresight of either Henry or Richard.

We can only guess what the Duke’s anonymous benefactor would have done after helping him to escape, but the logical course, if he had been in Henry’s service, would have been to send the reassuring news of the boy’s true fate to Richard, under whose protection he lived. Richard would thus have had certain proof of a despicable crime perpetrated by his most dangerous enemy–a piece of intelligence so shocking on both moral and political levels that he would surely have made an immediate public disclosure of the plot. Instead, Warbeck claimed that his benefactor insisted on secrecy so as to avoid retribution.

The two men appointed to kill the princes, whatever their secret allegiance may have been, must officially have been in Richard’s service, since they were able to enter and exit the Tower at will. The supposition that the benefactor needed protection in such circumstances again implies that Richard was the plotter. also, if Henry was behind the murders, it would have been a great risk to send the Duke to Flanders, on the same side of the Channel as Henry, when one of Richard’s castles in the North of England would have adequately shielded him from prying eyes. Only if Richard was the murderer would the Prince need to leave England immediately. The benefactor in this case would have had no reason whatsoever to inform Henry or anyone else of his deed, because his continued enjoyment of royal favour, as well as his life, was at stake.

Strangely, although Warbeck claimed to have been the victim of an attempted murder, he never specified who was behind the crime. There seems to be no reason, if his story was genuine, why his benefactor should not have given him this information, so presumably, the Duke simply chose not to disclose the murder’s identity. By accusing Henry, Warbeck could have weakened the King’s hold on the throne considerably and given his own cause an undeniable stamp of justice. The only reason for not making use of this tactic can be that Warbeck, and everyone else, knew that it was simply not true. If, however, Richard was behind the crime, the confirmation of his guilt would have made little impact and might actually have exposed Warbeck to censure for plotting to overthrow the man who had avenged his brother’s murder.

While such speculation, following from the assumption that Perkin Warbeck was really the young Duke, renders him of dubious value in exonerating Richard, it can hardly be considered conclusive evidence of his guilt. And if Warbeck was not Richard–and the weight of the evidence indicates that he was not–then he casts even less light on the fate of the Princes in the Tower. So while his appearance makes a fascinating act in the drama of history, he is a witness of little value in penetrating the mystery behind the missing Princes.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to