The Telegraph has published an article claiming that a Church in Devon contains clues pointing to the survival of one of the Princes in the Tower. Is this likely, or is it "Da Vinci Code" level history?

No. In all probability, this tells us nothing about the fate of the Two Princes that we don’t already know.

First, let’s take a look at the evidence and what people thought at the time. England has an inglorious history of murdering its deposed monarchs. Once you lost the crown, unless you fled in exile, you were killed. It was an accepted fact of monarchical life. Edward II, Henry VI and Richard II were all killed after having the throne taken from them. The reason is simple - sovereign lineage was a definable line that needed to be broken, in order for a rival to secure the throne. Indeed, this is why Henry Tudor was sent to France by his mother. She knew that the Yorkists would be out for his blood as a Lancastrian with a (admittedly dodgy) claim to the throne. The suggestion that Henry VII was somehow in on the conspiracy is frankly hilarious. He had to stave off rebellions from The Lovells and The Staffords early on in his reign. He was fiercely protective of his legacy as a unifying monarch and went to great lengths to ensure there was no resurgence of the Wars of the Roses. It is inconceivable that he would not only let the sons of Edward IV live in the country, but also be part of a cover-up. What would he have to gain out of it? Also, aforementioned plotters were prominent members of the Yorkist dynasty. Are we really to accept that Margaret of York - a woman utterly dedicated to the Yorkist cause - wouldn’t know of the continuing existence of her nephews, through her allies the Woodvilles, whom the article claims knew about it? Medieval promises were frequently broken through expedience. I’m sorry, but it’s rubbish. After her husband the Duke of Burgundy died she was left to twiddle her thumbs in France. If her nephews were still alive, she would have been on the first boat back to England! There were two impostors that presented themselves as the Princes not long after Bosworth - Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck - who found sympathisers in former Yorkists. The fact that any embryonic Yorkist rebellion had to rely on people masquerading as the Princes, instead of one of the Princes themselves, also says a lot about their eventual fate.

There’s also plenty of primary source material from contemporary observers with no vested interest in either side to consider, this is in addition to accounts of people literally weeping in the streets over the death of their young King. Edvard Brampt was a Jewish Yorkist courtier who agreed with popular opinion that they had been murdered. Dominic Mancini, an Italian courtier, was of the same opinion, so was Robert Ricart, the town clerk of Bristol, and the preeminent political document of the time, The Great Chronicle, came to the conclusion that they had “met a violent death”.

These conclusions were not only based on the fact that they disappeared, but the character of Richard III and his familial trait for betraying his own kin. He was utterly ruthless in the way that he seized power once his brother had died. Whilst he was still Duke of Gloucester, him and his men literally walked into a council meeting attended by Baron William Hastings, who was the Lord Protector of the two young Princes, dragged Hastings onto Tower Green and beheaded him without trial to assume the Protectorship himself. And this (Hastings) was the man who initially wrote to Richard to attend London immediately to ensure the safe keeping of his two nephews! Also, as I’ve mentioned, his family had a predisposition to fratricide. Richards brother, the Duke of Clarence, fought against his brother Edward IV for nigh on 10 years, overtly and in secret, for control of the throne, until Edward got sick of him and had him executed (or, as some suggest, drowned in a barrel of wine).

OK, so onto the article. Setting aside that there is absolutely no record of this supposed pact that has survived in the annals of history during a time where elite behaviour was relatively well documented and spoken/gossiped about, it is not “uncommon” for such stained glass windows to be found in provincial churches. Religion was a philanthropic venture in late medieval England. Small, independent places of worship were built by patriarchal landowners to further their standing in society, and were adorned as such with all manner of ostentatious fittings. I’m not sure why a stained glass window is being viewed with such mystique.

Onto the lettering. It doesn’t take a historian to assert that there is some definite mental and symbolical gymnastics going on, in order to come to the conclusion that it’s the son of Edward IV. It is all circumstantial, and even where it is co-incidental, it still requires a leap of faith to fully accept.

Lastly, the organisation in question are dedicated to reestablishing Richard III’s historical legacy, which is fine if there is actual credible evidence to discuss, but this discovery doesn’t warrant using such language as “having a fresh discussion” on the fate of the Princes. Philippa Langley did some absolutely tremendous work in uncovering his body in Leicester, but this really is a step too far. It’s fairly obvious that they’re on a mission to redeem his reputation as a murderer (even though it’s highly doubtful he did it himself, and delegated the task to one of his cronies), but the enormous weight of evidence points to the fact that Richard III was ambitious to a murderous fault, a character trait that enabled him to seize the throne of England, but also one that played a part in his eventual downfall as he found himself increasingly isolated amongst the nobility in the lead up to Bosworth.

In my opinion, when he was called from York to London to look after them, even before he arrested Rivers and those close to them, he probably had no intention of killing them. It was probably a creeping realisation, reinforced by those closest to him who had vested interest in him taking the throne.

Source: Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders, Nathan Amin, 2020

Edit: Added some context for Margret of York and tidied up spelling.

Edit: Numbering