Interesting, but all speculation. I think bodies and dna testing would need to be done, if and when bodies are ever found, and also either a confession/account of is found somewhere in a journal might solve mystery. But until either of those, I'm afraid it all is speculation. I did enjoy the book however. Sad story about brutal power struggles. Not a bad read at all.

This is an unusual take on this great historical mystery. Trow delves into the myths about Richard III and his motives for becoming King. At times I felt that he was a bit too sympathetic, but his extensive research is unassailable, and the book is fascinating. He also goes through all the characters involved, and their possible motives for killing the young Princes, finally arriving at a strange conclusion, which I didn't find terribly convincing, although I don't think that Richard is to blame. I agreed with Trow's view on a certain question of ethics, however.

I thought that this book went off-topic and was too wordy sometimes. For example, I am not sure that we needed to know about the history of Eton, or about so many cases of modern murderers.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in King Richard III.

I received this free ebook from NetGalley in return for an honest review.

As an occasional true crime fan with a passing interest in history, this was a pretty satisfying read. The author is a very clear writer, he explains the convoluted politics of the time very well and then he breaks down the main suspects be they plausible or implausible one by one and argues the points for and against their guilt. I think the least interesting aspect of this book is the author's theory about who actually did the deed (if indeed the deed was done!), but along the way and in defending his theory you learn an awful lot about the times and history and many other aspects of the crime of murder. Instructive, informative even if the author's main hypothesis is incredible...

The book is very structured, and easy to follow. It firstly relates the background of how the princes ended up in the Tower in the first place, and the history of the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III, detailing the key players and positions of power that they held, along with the known movements of the princes and their lives.

The suspects are dealt with one by one, the inclusion of some raised eyebrows - but it is worth looking at all the people potentially involved and then dismissing or investigating further accordingly, so I can see why the author has done this.

The case put forward for the killer's identity is convincing, although for me not necessarily for the main motive the author builds a case for. If this suspect did cause the deaths of the princes, to me everything points to it being accidental, while the author concentrates on a malicious, premeditated motive, which doesn't quite make sense to me. I think if more of the book had built on a case of negligence the argument might have been stronger.

I liked the way the chapters were organised, and the dialogue was written in an easy to read, entertaining way.

This book will make you rethink the case of the Princes in the Tower. The killer identified in the book does deserve to be in the line up of suspects involved in the case, but before I picked up the book, I didn't see it coming at all. This work definitely puts a new suspect into the spotlight so that more research can be done.

The fate of the Princes in the Tower is one of my favourite historical mystery, so I was excited to read M.J. Trow's book, which presents a brand new suspect and motive.

I really enjoyed the first part. The author presents the setting and the major historical players in a concise and simple way, and the section where he analyzes the most "popular" suspects is in my opinion the most successful of the book. He is quite convincing in proving that even the suspects who are considered more likely lacked the sufficient motive or opportunity. The fact that many centuries have passed and physical evidence is gone makes it even more difficult to discover the truth.

However, once he starts presenting his thesis, the book becomes weaker. Trow argues that the Princes' doctor, John Argentein, was their murderer, but he didn't really convince me. He could have been, but there is absolutely no evidence. He definitely had the opportunity, but the motive felt extremely weak to me. Why would the doctor kill such important patients, who could still be restored to the throne and make him a very important and rich man? Later he also was the doctor of Arthur, Henry VII's firstborn, and Trow argues that Argentein killed him as well. Again, the motive seems even weaker. In this case Argentein was the doctor of the heir to the throne: why throw it all away? The disposal of the bodies of the Princes, which the author presents as something so simple, also didn't seem likely to me,

All in all, this is an intriguing book to read if you are interested in the Princes, especially if you want to read about a brand new theory; but for me the thesis wasn't convincing at all.

In 1483, King Edward IV’s family received a devastating announcement; the king in the prime of his life died, leaving the throne to his young son Edward V. However, neither Edward V nor his younger brother Richard of York would ever see the throne. Instead, they were taken to the Tower of London by their protector, Richard of Gloucester, for protection, never to be seen again. For over five hundred years, many theories have emerged about what happened to the princes in the tower and who might have possibly killed the boys. In MJ Trow’s latest book, “The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed”, he works hard to uncover the truth of what might have happened to the sons of King Edward IV.

I would like to thank Net Galley and Pen and Sword Books for sending me a copy of this book. When I first heard about this particular title, I was curious yet skeptical. There are so many books and theories about the princes in the tower. I questioned how this one would differ from those who are experts in this field. So, of course, I decided that I wanted to read this book to find out.

Trow’s approach to this case is to treat it like an investigation that modern police would do. First, we must examine the bodies or the lack of bodies in this case. Trow does mention the bodies that were found in the Tower in the 1600s and the examination of the bones in the 1900s. As it is hard to accurately determine if these are indeed the princes without further DNA analysis of the bones, Trow goes into what we know about the case, the actual facts from sources that he claims are dubious. He tends to use the works of Shakespeare and Thomas More quite a lot although he is hypercritical of both sources.

It is here where Trow actually presents his main discussion of the book; who was the killer of the princes in the tower. He starts with the usual suspects (Richard III, Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort, and the Duke of Buckingham), which he quickly dismisses. Then, Trow dives into the more obscure suspects. I actually found some of the people who he suggested ridiculous suspects because of who they were and their connections to the princes. I had never heard some of the theories he suggested in this section and I considered them a bit of a stretch. The person that Trow actually believes could have been the murderer is an intriguing character and he does make a compelling case for him committing the heinous act.

For me, it was Trow’s research and how he presented his case that was extremely poor when I was reading this book. I wanted Trow to move away from the more ridiculous suspects to focus on his main suspect and develop his theory. When he discusses his theory, he uses modern examples of similar cases to prove his point. I think he would have made a stronger case if he showed examples closer to the date of when the princes were killed.

In general, I found this book rather different than other books that are about the princes in the tower. There were some compelling theories and the suspect that Trow believes did the deed was not someone that I remotely considered. I think this book will definitely have people talking about this new suspect. If you want to know MJ Trow’s opinion about who he thinks killed the princes, consider reading “The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed.”

The potential fates of the 'Princes in the Tower' - Edward V and Richard of York - have attracted extensive scholarship over the past few decades, and it was refreshing to read the alternative explanation of their demise suggested here. By exploring the boys' possible killers through the modern policing triumvirate of motive, means, and opportunity, Trow approaches both previously-suggested culprits and a new potential murderer with a clear and analytical style.

This is of course a complex narrative, and Trow places the boys' fates very much at the heart of the dynastic and political struggles of 1483. Entirely accessible for a reader new to this topic, Trow's book also explores possible murderers in enough detail that even those familiar with the period will find something new to enjoy here. I found the development of this new potential killer interesting, and the parallels with the death of Prince Arthur in 1502 particularly fascinating - although I did feel that this angle could be developed further.

While the shady figure of Trow's suggested murderer certainly had the means and opportunity to kill the boys, their motive was less developed and I found this less convincing. However, I do think that Trow has done enough work to at least justify the further exploration of this potential culprit.

The fate of the Princes in the Tower – Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York – remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of all time. Reportedly last seen in the grounds of the Tower of London in the summer of 1483, the disappearance of the two boys has divided historians ever since. Their uncle, Richard III, is the man most often accused of being responsible for their deaths, while the names of Henry VII and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham have also been suggested as possible culprits. In all three cases there is a logical political motive: to remove rival claimants to the throne. But what if the murder (assuming that it was actually murder) was not politically motivated at all? What if the princes were killed for an entirely different reason, by someone completely unexpected?

MJ Trow’s new book, The Killer of the Princes in the Tower, is subtitled A New Suspect Revealed, and I have to admit, when I first started reading, I was very sceptical about this. The Wars of the Roses and Richard III’s reign in particular is a period of history I’m very interested in and I’ve read a lot of books over the years, both fiction and non-fiction, that deal with the subject of the Princes in the Tower. Could Trow really come up with a ‘new suspect’? Well, yes he does – or at least, one that I can’t remember being suggested in any of the other books I’ve read.

If you have any prior knowledge of the period and the controversy surrounding the princes, it will probably be helpful, but if not Trow does provide plenty of background information, describing the whole sequence of events following the death of the boys’ father, Edward IV, and explaining how Richard III came to take the throne before the young Edward V could be crowned. He spends some time discussing the idea that the princes could have been secretly released from the Tower and not murdered at all – a theory some people believe is supported by the appearance a few years later of a ‘pretender’, Perkin Warbeck, claiming to be the younger of the princes, Richard of York – but (sensibly, in my opinion), he doesn’t consider this as a serious possibility. He then looks at all of the potential suspects one by one, presenting the evidence for each one being the murderer and then dismissing it, until only one name is left…

Trow approaches the mystery like a modern day police investigation, believing that no stone should be left unturned and looking for motive, means and opportunity. Beginning with the three most obvious suspects, he moves on to consider their supporters, servants and family members; even Richard III’s wife, Anne Neville, and the princes’ own mother, Elizabeth Woodville, are discussed – because, as Trow says, they would certainly have been interviewed by the police if the boys had disappeared today. He also examines the reliability of the various sources and what we can learn from them.

The revelation of the new suspect did take me by surprise because it’s not someone who would ever have occurred to me. It’s true that this person certainly had the means and the opportunity, but I wasn’t at all convinced about the motive, even though Trow devotes a whole chapter to drawing comparisons with other people throughout history who have killed for similar reasons. Although what Trow suggests is not impossible, I don’t think it’s very likely either and as far as I’m concerned the mystery remains unsolved! Still, it’s good to read a theory that is neither pro-Ricardian nor anti-Ricardian and that looks at the whole subject from a very different angle. I found this book almost as gripping as fiction, so despite not agreeing with the conclusion I still really enjoyed reading it.

A new suspect indeed! A very intriguing answer to the question, who killed the Princes in the Tower?. Richard of Gloucester could indeed be rehabilitated, as this novel gives an incredible’ truth’ that seen through modern day eyes, and previous events to be very credible.
Very logical in its deductions, each character involved in this event is crossed examined in a police procedural way, where were the suspects, what was their motive and how did they benefit. Historical facts are considered and put up against actual records of the time. These facts cut through the gossip of Thomas More, and a wordsmith named William Shakespeare, and the answer would seem to be look at those who hide in plain sight, the right place and the right time, seem to be watchwords here.
A novel to be savoured and enjoyed. The detail and research is amazing, the alternative viewpoint is credible. Sadly , someone got away with two murders, but this book could clear a much maligned King of England.
My thanks to Pen and Sword history, and Netgalley for my ARC, in return for my honest review.

The mystery of the Princes has already been thrashed out fully, hasn't it? Well, no, perhaps not…

The author of this book promises a new take and he certainly delivers! This is a really refreshing look at the events surrounding the Princes disappearance and probable murder in 1483. The author considers all the possible (and less possible) suspects, lays out the evidence and finally presents his own conclusion. I’m used to history books where the author begins by setting out their hypothesis and then presenting me with their reasons throughout the rest of the book, but Trow does things differently: he keeps his prime suspect under wraps until 60% of the way through, and then builds up his case against that person piece by piece. This worked really well, because it added in all the suspense and tension of reading a fictional detective story.

While I’m not sure I totally go along with the author’s conclusions, he does make a strong and compelling case. I had a lot of fun forming my own view from all the information he presented. The book is informative and lively and contains plenty of detail about the various figures, such as their family history, their general daily life and their specific habits. I recommend it to history fans and mystery fans and suggest you go in knowing as little as possible so as not to spoil the atmosphere.

I'd like to thank the publisher and Netgalley for kindly providing me with an advance review copy. All opinions are my own.

I came to this from reading Trow's earlier book on Richard III - Richard III in the North - However, this tome covers the mystery of the princes in the tower. Using the time honoured technique of analysing means, motive and opportunity, Trow posits the question - qui bono? Who benefits?

Trow sets forth his case utilising methods familiar to anyone who has watched or read a police procedural, court room drama or forensic investigation. As the with any suspicious death, he looks at those closest to the victims - the most obvious suspects (Richard III and Henry VII), some lesser suspects (the adherents, the family) before putting forth one who he considers highly likely and almost unanimously overlooked. A person who had the holy trinity of means, motive and opportunity - a person who quite literally got away with murder. In fact, someone I myself had not considered!

I found this to be a compelling read - it covers off the period of the Wars of the Roses, the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III, Bosworth, and the succession of Henry VII, the mystery of the princes and the pretenders rather succinctly without bogging the reader down in a mire of dry information overload (or dump). There is enough here for even the most casual reader to follow without having to take a crash course in medieval history.

Whether you agree or disagree with Trow's conclusions, this makes for some thought-provoking reading - who knows, maybe there is another suspect lurking in the shadows that no-one has considered ... after five centuries, nothing is conclusive but nor should it be dismissed for not following the two "standard" lines of thought.

Definitely one for my own library!

Reading this has made me mad. I really tried to give it a chance, because I was genuinely curious as to who Trow believed could be the actual killer. I also really wanted to read a Ricardian view book to see some of the arguments as to Richard's innocence. But I just can't agree. Now, I don't think that Richard was a heartless monster. I don't even necessarily think that he killed his two nephews. Other people had motives as well, though in my opinion, none had as good a motive as Richard. But what really bothers me is the hypocrisy that Trow demonstrates. In regards to Thomas More, the controversial Tudor historian, Trow rejects anything More says about Richard but accepts pretty much everything else. No reason why, except for the fact that More doesn't like Richard, which doesn't fit into Trow's narrative. And I absolutely hate how Trow villifies Elizabeth Woodville. He does to her exactly what he says others have done to Richard - make her out to be a selfish, heartless monster. Elizabeth deserves better than that just as much as Richard does. I cannot agree with a scholar, who makes the same mistake as he accuses others of making. And I have not seen a shred of evidence from Trow that would support the majority of his claims... So yes, as a historian, this book makes me mad. I really wanted to learn more about Richard and I wanted to see him in a different light. But the way that Trow goes about it just ruins the whole thing for me. I will not be converted into a Ricardian just yet...

This author seemed very pro ricardian and not a fan of Henry VII and didn't mince words about it.There are however some interesting theories in here.I liked how the author totally immersed himself in his subject,his writing and his willingness to get down and dirty with the suspect list.I think putting other people out there is a good thing but was this a plausible explanation for what happened to the princes?Possibly.Much thanks to Netgalley for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review.

Thank you to NetGalley, the author and publisher for the e-ARC in exchange for my honest review.

This is a hard book to review without giving away spoilers. What I can say is the author has a terrific way of laying out his theory without it being weighed down and boring. The author leaves no stone unturned in his quest to find the answer to the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower.

He visits the main three - Richard III, Henry VII and The Duke of Buckingham as well as others who have been considered over time - but as the title suggests he introduces a new suspect and presents his reasons as to why he believes he is the murderer of those boys.

As someone who has read many books on the subject, I found this book to be truly fascinating and thought provoking. The end of the book has wonderful pictures as well.

High marks for thoroughness and creativity.

I absolutely don't agree with Trow's conclusion of who did it, but I appreciate that he covered just about everyone in the known historical record of the time and weighed up the evidence of if they might have killed the princes in the tower. And by everyone, I mean everyone - he even goes through the possible evidence if Elizabeth Woodville was the killer! (To be fair, he decides she most likely was not.)

As well as examining everyone alive at the time, he also goes through the subsequent historians from the Tudor period up to today and what they thought of the crime, what prejudices and biases they might have, and how wrong or right he thinks they were. He gives similar treatment to the primary-ish sources we have of the event (including the bones from 1664), where that evidence came from, and if we can trust it.

He goes off on a few tangents, especially towards the end, but I was absolutely enthralled by Trow's reexamination of what he calls "the coldest of cold cases".

I'm writing this not from my usual ignorance, for I do have some knowledge of the Richard III stories. I have performed for 3,000 at Bosworth; I walked past the King's coffin twice before he was re-interred. I certainly knew he was accused of murdering potential rivals for the throne, only for it to be rather irrelevant two years later. But I'd never read a book about those Princes, and never one claiming to have a new culprit to reveal.

To start with I certainly didn't think this was a perfect book for the ignorant novice I normally am – the thrusting on to the page of too many names, royal statuses and suchlike was not atypical of such books, I find. On the whole, however, with multiple Richards and other instances of repeated names this handles the problem fairly well. One other thing that was incredibly easy to spot was the author's cattiness – he snips at this recent historical writer, he scoffs at that anti-Ricardian viewpoint, he shoots down with much brevity this person counter to his thinking. I didn't think that the norm – but then, this book cries out for pages and pages of notes and gets none, so I can see the academic historian asking for a refund with multiple motive.

Oh, look, that word. Yes, the book is very well structured in being a solving of a historical case, in defining the life of the boys before their placement in the Tower of London, and of what happened during and afterwards, and then proceeding to summarise the charges for and against all the usual (and unusual) suspects. When it does boil down to the person being fingered here, however, I found another cause to have my eyebrows raised. I don't think the fact there are potential people on record as having done a similar thing would ever stand up in court, and I think this whole section rather awkward as a result. In chasing someone with motive, means and opportunity there is a great deal of logic behind the accusation made, but for this to really grab the general audience it really needed the "cor, you know what? I think he's got it!" feel, and this didn't have that. I could tell the author had immersed himself forensically and then some into the players in this story, and everybody who's discussed it in print since, but I sought the perfect storm of ideal subject finding its ideal author in vain. Three and a half stars from me.

And as a bonus, I was able to get thoughts from someone who knows a heck of a lot more than me – a close blood relative no less who was a long-time member of the RIII Society. When asked who she thought might be featured, she leapt on Morton, who is rather under-featured here. It's fair to say that without reading this she agreed with a couple of my thoughts – especially where the lack of notes is concerned – but remained in no small way intrigued at the character our author claims to have resurrected from the ignominy of history.

In "The Killer of the princes in the tower", the coldest, the most frozen and the most unresolved cold case in English history, is given a new lease of life by the talented novelist and historian M J Trow who brilliantly turns the tables on all the historical certainties that we have been gullible enough to accept since 1483 about the still unexplained disappearance of Edward IV's boys. A contemporary approach to a missing person report that covers every single aspect of the case without for once exonerating any of the usual suspects gravitating around the throne at the time.
Judiciously presented, this new study rejuvenates the leads behind the story by planting seeds of doubt about the roles and motivations of all the people directly involved in all the political shenanigans. A successful 21st century investigation into a 15th century murder mystery....
A fresh and thrilling look at one of the most compelling mysteries of late medieval Europe that will definitely be welcomed by many history buffs. To be enjoyed without moderation!

Many thanks to Netgalley and Pen & Sword for the opportunity to read this wonderful book.

I was interested in reading this book because, like everyone who has ever watched "The White Queen," or read Alison Weir's "The Princes In The Tower," or Josephine Tey's "The Daughter Of Time," I wanted to know who killed these boys. I've developed my own theory over time. I have to hand it to M.J. Trow. He has introduced a suspect that I've never seriously considered. Before making his case, he examines many of the usual suspects and explains - in great detail - why he discounts them. He also disputes the arguments made by other historians and authors.

I enjoyed this book immensely. I can't say that he completely convinced me to change my mind, but I learned a great deal that I didn't already know. The depth of detail in this book alone is worth the read. But the author's obvious commitment to leaving no stone unturned sets this book apart from many others in the genre. If you love all things Richard III, the War of the Roses, the Plantagenets, or even the Tudors, I think you will enjoy this book. It definitely has an academic tone, but it's still quite entertaining.

I'm very grateful that NetGalley offered me a copy after I put this on my wishlist. It was a very enjoyable, and educational, read.

The centuries old mystery of the disappearance and true fate of what really happened to the ill-fated princes in the tower haunts me. No matter who is truly to blame for their murder is a question that will most likely never be resolved, and trying to figure out why had the most to gain from the deaths is both intriguing and complex because the fact that it could have been any number of people that caused their tragic ending is just so mind boggling and frustrating. Who did it?!

I’ve watched and read everything I have been able to find about this case because it’s truly a case, no matter how many centuries have past, that just sticks with you; that haunts you and makes you wish you could go back in time and see what really led to their demise.

Although I have read and watched numerous things about their disappearance, I still can’t get enough and am always eager to research more about this tragic mystery.

My heart goes out to these princes, because no matter the truth, it truly is just so heartbreaking. Not to mention infuriating.

Despite the sadness surrounding their mysterious disappearance, researching their case is fascinating (and infuriating.)

What I love about this book in particular
is the fact that it offers new perspectives, to go along with the usual suspects, as the author introduces a new suspect.

He introduces an alternative angle I had never taken into consideration and nor never researched this person of interest, and the evidence and circumstances surrounding him were so compelling. The author presented startling theories and evidence as to why this person may be responsible, and I was hooked on his reasoning as to why this person is suspicious.

Although I still don’t know what to believe with certainty about who was ultimately responsible, I was thoroughly engaged in this book.

I am truly grateful to the author for writing such a compelling, and extremely well researched book.

This mystery will always both haunt and sadden me, and although I don’t believe the truth will ever come out, I am glad that people are still giving us fascinating books to keep the mystery relevant.

If you are a fan of the tragic princes who deserved more in life and still deserve justice, definitely pick this one up!

In his latest book, true crime and mystery writer M. J. Trow introduces a new suspect in the murder Edward V and his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York--together known as the Princes in the Tower--sometime around the year 1483. Trow sorts through all of the usual suspects like Richard III, Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), and the Duke of Buckingham--among several others--who stood to benefit from the princes’ deaths, explaining the case for eliminating one suspect after the other. Finally, the author narrows down the list of suspects until he singles out an obscure priest who served as a doctor to Edward V and the Duke of York, and would later serve as physician to Arthur, the first son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, who also had a mysterious death. He cites a book that historian Audrey Williamson wrote in 1981 which also named the same doctor and priest as the murderer. However, Trow disagrees with Williamson about the motive behind the murder; this suspect was not motivated by personal gain, as one would normally expect, but because he suffered from the God complex.

Trow points to the suspect’s poetry, the size of his name written in books that he owned, and an elaborate tomb at King’s College, Cambridge as evidence of the doctor’s arrogance. The author consulted plays written many years after the murder, personal diaries, letters, and applied the modern investigation practice of identifying motive, opportunity, and means for each suspect. To support his argument that we must consider this new suspect, the author goes through several cases over the past centuries in which physicians murdered their patients, making a comparison between these doctors and the one supposedly behind the 1483 double murder.

The book includes a bibliography, index, and paintings of York, Woodville, and Tudor family members (among others), images of the Tower of London, its layout, and other buildings that are significant to this story.

This is a well-researched and written book that I would recommend to anyone interested in British history, particularly the War of Roses and the Tudor family history.