dangerous, would have
learned to become a little more circumspect. But the facts are quite
otherwise. Sir Robert continued long after in the good graces of his
sovereign, always remained faithful to him, even when many others
deserted him, and finally fell in battle bravely fighting in his cause.
Richard did not become more cautious, but, on the contrary, more
imprudent than ever. He complained loudly of his disappointment, even in
the presence of a page. This page is nameless in the story, but he serves
to introduce to the King not less a person than Sir James Tyrell, who is
represented as willing to do anything to obtain favor, and envious of the
influence possessed by others. He undertakes and executes the task
which Brackenbury had refused, and for this service we are told he
was knighted. All this greatly misrepresents Sir James' position and
influence, if not his character. He not only was a knight long before
this, but had been in the preceding year created by Richard himself
a knight banneret for his distinguished services during the Scotch
campaign. He had been, during Edward IV's reign, a commissioner for
executing the office of lord high constable. He was then master of the
King's henchmen, or pages. He was also master of the horse. If his mere
position in the world did not make him disdain to be a hired assassin,
he at least did not require to be recommended through the medium of that
nameless page.

Moreover, it appears that the fact of the princes having been murdered
was held in great doubt for a long time afterward. Even More himself,
writing about thirty years later, is obliged to acknowledge that the
thing had "so far come in question that some remained long in doubt
whether they were in Richard's days destroyed or no." This is certainly
remarkable, when it is considered that it was of the utmost importance
for Henry VII to terminate all controversy upon the question. Yet Sir
Thomas tells us that these doubts arose not only from the uncertainty men
were in whether Perkin Warbeck was the true duke of York, "but for that
also that all things were so covertly demeaned, one thing pretended and
another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that
yet, for the common custom of close and covert dealing, men had it ever
inwardly suspect." All this, it is urged, may very well suggest that
the doubts were reasonable, and that the princes in reality were not
destroyed in the days of Richard I