The Princes In The Tower: The New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a highly recommended documentary that I watched yesterday. Historian Philippa Langley (who located the body of King Richard III) and Barrister Rob Rinder follow the new evidence discovered by Langley’s ‘Missing Princes Project.’ It’s not much of a ‘spoiler alert’ because the information is everywhere but the evidence points strongly to the two Princes not dying in the Tower. It’s intriguing, persuasive stuff and the documentary is well worth a watch if you can access it. I’ve just ordered Philippa Langley’s book on the subject.

[Ally]

I will be honest, this is like ... fifth on my list of things to look into ...next, when I have the time.... but I read one article that makes the theory sound unhinged. Am I correct that the basic premise is she thinks that one of the Princes, escaped the tower, then assumed a false identity, to then claim "Hey I'm the prince" to do an insurrection?

Because that just sounds stupid. Like, hey somehow the princes managed to get smuggled out of the tower (by who?), only to grow up as low-class nobodies with zero noble support to announce themselves in an overthrow attempt.

There better be some damn good connecting the dots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The case for them surviving isn’t implausible considering the documents discovered by the project but that doesn’t mean it’s game, set and match though. I’ll be interested to hear what other historians of the era have to say. The Ricardians are as happy as pigs in you-know-what of course. I do struggle with the suggestion that Richard sent them off to live in secret though. “Now you promise not to tell anyone who you are?”

[Fiver]

For me the key is the children of George of Clarence. They had been strained, barring them from the throne, but being strained hadn't stopped Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VIi. George's son Edward of Warwick was a potential rival to the thrones of Richard and Henry. Yet Edward of Warwick survived the reign of Richard and wasn't executed by Henry until more than a decade later, when he was an adult.

Would a man who killed two nephews hesitate to kill a third? Would a usurper who killed two of his wife's brothers hesitate to kill his wife's cousin?

Killing the sons of Edward IV and claiming they died of a fever would eliminate rivals, but you would be blamed for their deaths. Keeping them alive means rebellions could be raised in their name. Disappearing then is an even worse option - rebellions can be raised in their names and you can be accused of killing them.

Richard had seen his brother publicly display the body of Henry VI so everyone knew he was dead. Henry VIi publicly displayed Richard's body so everyone knew he was dead. But Edward IV's sons just disappeared.

I see two likely possibilities.

One is the equivalent of "who will rid me of this troublesome priest". A retainer thought to curry favor with the King by killing the boys. They then found out the King didn't want them killed and hid the evidence from the King

Another is a failed kidnapping or rescue attempt of the boys. Perhaps they were sent to the continent on a ship that sank. The King wouldn't know what had happened and whoever had tried to snatch the boys as political pawns wouldn't want to reveal they had accidentally gotten the boys killed.

[Linotte]

This premieres Wednesday in the US and I plan on watching it. The premise is intriguing and I’m at least interested in what Philippa Langley has to say.

What really interests me is her promotional strategy, though. I did a quick check and I couldn’t find a social media presence for Langley. It seems her publisher/agent/publicist is handling the promotion. The premise is controversial and they’re word of mouth help sell the book. I did watch some clips of the documentary and she seems pretty low key anyway. I think she’s letting the conversation drive things and is keeping her head low and doing her thing. Which is really very smart, given how quickly gossip can travel in the book world. One misstep can land you on BookTube and BookTok and your prospective career could be over in a matter of days. The most recent example of this is the Tillie Cole situation in Romancelandia.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This premieres Wednesday in the US and I plan on watching it. The premise is intriguing and I’m at least interested in what Philippa Langley has to say.

What really interests me is her promotional strategy, though. I did a quick check and I couldn’t find a social media presence for Langley. It seems her publisher/agent/publicist is handling the promotion. The premise is controversial and they’re word of mouth help sell the book. I did watch some clips of the documentary and she seems pretty low key anyway. I think she’s letting the conversation drive things and is keeping her head low and doing her thing. Which is really very smart, given how quickly gossip can travel in the book world. One misstep can land you on BookTube and BookTok and your prospective career could be over in a matter of days. The most recent example of this is the Tillie Cole situation in Romancelandia.

Hi Linotte,

She’s certainly not going for the headlines as I can’t recall seeing any over here considering that this is probably our greatest historical mystery. Then again, we live in an age where everything is ‘now’ and history, dare I say it, is something of a thing of the past. Her approach certainly wasn’t as part of the Ricardian/Anti-Ricardian thing but one of simply wanting to get at the truth…hence her Missing Princes Project where she called for researchers everywhere to join and search archives everywhere. It was these researchers that found the documents which led to her belief that the Princes survived. I won't go into any detail and spoil the documentary for you though. I’m looking forward to reading the book too.

I’ve always been of the opinion that they were killed on the orders of Sir Lawrence Olivier.

[caz]

I've just finished watching, for the first time, the 2013 documentary on the discovery of Richard III's remains in the Leicester car park. I found it absolutely fascinating, as well as almost impossible to imagine how Philippa Langley was able - on pretty much a hunch - [no pun intended but gratefully received] to pinpoint the exact spot where the first digging would unearth human bones, showing a distinct curvature of the spine. I was tempted to compare it at first with the 'Ghostwatch' mocumentary from 1992, with its startling revelations each looking way too good to be true, and Langley's astonished facial expressions and emotions all over the place. If it had been made as a monster of a televised hoax, nobody would have fallen for it - and yet it was all true.

Langley had been labelled a "crank" by some academic, whose name escapes me, before finally being vindicated by a DNA match between the remains and a living descendant of Richard, who looked like everyone's favourite uncle. Langley's face didn't fit because she was not herself a professional historian or scientist, and the sceptics would have seen her sheer passion for the project as a sure sign that it was doomed to failure. They would not have been remotely surprised - nor dare I say disappointed - to be proved right. I bet she left a lot of 'em looking like bulldogs licking piss off a nettle.

I will certainly be watching the new Princes in the Tower doc to see what all the fuss is about, and will try very hard to keep an open mind. But I rather like the idea that someone may have dealt with the boys without Richard's knowledge or approval, as a misguided 'favour' to him, which royally backfired and had serious repercussions down the centuries for this monarch's perceived character. His spinal deformity was evidently pronounced enough in life to serve the Tudors well after his death as a sure sign from God of his innate wickedness. Have human beings improved all that much when it comes to attitudes towards the physically afflicted?

A butt of Malmsey wine, anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[Linotte]

Hi Linotte,

She’s certainly not going for the headlines as I can’t recall seeing any over here considering that this is probably our greatest historical mystery. Then again, we live in an age where everything is ‘now’ and history, dare I say it, is something of a thing of the past. Her approach certainly wasn’t as part of the Ricardian/Anti-Ricardian thing but one of simply wanting to get at the truth…hence her Missing Princes Project where she called for researchers everywhere to join and search archives everywhere. It was these researchers that found the documents which led to her belief that the Princes survived. I won't go into any detail and spoil the documentary for you though. I’m looking forward to reading the book too.

I’ve always been of the opinion that they were killed on the orders of Sir Lawrence Olivier.

Good morning, Herlock (over here at least!)

There’s a lot to be said for being like, “Ok, here’s my work and conclusions, byeee!” and then letting people talk it out and react as they see fit.

One thing I’m seeing, though, is how cliquey and exclusive some parts of the British historian industry are. And there’s def a lack of consistency in whose work they support and whose they do not. It’s disappointing, but not surprising.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good morning, Herlock (over here at least!)

There’s a lot to be said for being like, “Ok, here’s my work and conclusions, byeee!” and then letting people talk it out and react as they see fit.

One thing I’m seeing, though, is how cliquey and exclusive some parts of the British historian industry are. And there’s def a lack of consistency in whose work they support and whose they do not. It’s disappointing, but not surprising.

And as Caz pointed out, Philippa Langley isn’t a professional historian so this might cloud perceptions of her especially in light of the fact that Richard III does have a kind of ‘fan club.’ Some may have seen her as someone looking for any reason to exonerate Richard of being involved in a murder. I haven’t read of any opinions that other historians might have on the discoveries but I’d be interested to hear what they say. Janina Ramirez, who is an art Historian, appears in the documentary and she favours that the Princes could have survived but we know that opinion is divided. I’ve always favoured a guilty Richard. Langley should certainly be congratulated though in starting the Missing Princes Project and getting researchers across Europe looking through their archives. It certainly paid dividends with the documents that have come to light.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've just finished watching, for the first time, the 2013 documentary on the discovery of Richard III's remains in the Leicester car park. I found it absolutely fascinating, as well as almost impossible to imagine how Philippa Langley was able - on pretty much a hunch - [no pun intended but gratefully received] to pinpoint the exact spot where the first digging would unearth human bones, showing a distinct curvature of the spine. I was tempted to compare it at first with the 'Ghostwatch' mocumentary from 1992, with its startling revelations each looking way too good to be true, and Langley's astonished facial expressions and emotions all over the place. If it had been made as a monster of a televised hoax, nobody would have fallen for it - and yet it was all true.

Langley had been labelled a "crank" by some academic, whose name escapes me, before finally being vindicated by a DNA match between the remains and a living descendant of Richard, who looked like everyone's favourite uncle. Langley's face didn't fit because she was not herself a professional historian or scientist, and the sceptics would have seen her sheer passion for the project as a sure sign that it was doomed to failure. They would not have been remotely surprised - nor dare I say disappointed - to be proved right. I bet she left a lot of 'em looking like bulldogs licking piss off a nettle.

I will certainly be watching the new Princes in the Tower doc to see what all the fuss is about, and will try very hard to keep an open mind. But I rather like the idea that someone may have dealt with the boys without Richard's knowledge or approval, as a misguided 'favour' to him, which royally backfired and had serious repercussions down the centuries for this monarch's perceived character. His spinal deformity was evidently pronounced enough in life to serve the Tudors well after his death as a sure sign from God of his innate wickedness. Have human beings improved all that much when it comes to attitudes towards the physically afflicted?

A butt of Malmsey wine, anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Wouldn’t you have loved to have seen the face of the historian that labelled her a crank (along with those who no doubt agreed) when she actually found Richard. An achievement that probably eclipses anything that they’d achieved in their academic careers to date. I’d say that some kind of award would be justified. An honorary degree or two perhaps?

I’d always favoured a ‘Richard was guilty of ordering their deaths’ verdict but it’s not a subject that I’ve studied in any real depth apart from reading a couple of books on the subject. Your suggestion is one that I’ve always considered plausible. Shades of Henry II and Beckett of course. I know that I saw a documentary once where David Starkey was asked if Richard was guilty and his response was something like “of course he was.” The documentary certainly left me thinking that they might have survived. I’m going to give it a second watch though then her book is due on Saturday.

[Linotte]

And as Caz pointed out, Philippa Langley isn’t a professional historian so this might cloud perceptions of her especially in light of the fact that Richard III does have a kind of ‘fan club.’ Some may have seen her as someone looking for any reason to exonerate Richard of being involved in a murder. I haven’t read of any opinions that other historians might have on the discoveries but I’d be interested to hear what they say. Janina Ramirez, who is an art Historian, appears in the documentary and she favours that the Princes could have survived but we know that opinion is divided. I’ve always favoured a guilty Richard. Langley should certainly be congratulated though in starting the Missing Princes Project and getting researchers across Europe looking through their archives. It certainly paid dividends with the documents that have come to light.

I keep forgetting to follow Ramirez, but from what I’ve seen, she seems to be really cool. She seems pretty open-minded and takes the attitude of, “Well, even if Langley’s hypothesis is incorrect, look at all the cool stuff we got as a result.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I keep forgetting to follow Ramirez, but from what I’ve seen, she seems to be really cool. She seems pretty open-minded and takes the attitude of, “Well, even if Langley’s hypothesis is incorrect, look at all the cool stuff we got as a result.”

Perhaps others might follow Langley’s example of enlisting researchers and amateur historians? Perhaps some might not be so keen if they are looking to advance their own standing and careers? Langley is quick to praise those that made the discovery of documents that had been unread (or perhaps not read closely) for centuries.

What’s also good is that there are so many female historians/experts making documentaries and writing best selling books at the moment. Ramirez is one, added to Mary Beard, Lucy Worsely, Suzanne Lipscombe, Kate Williams, Tracey Borman, Ruth Goodman and Alice Roberts etc. So we’re getting plenty of good history documentaries.

[Enigma]

For those who have not seen it, the documentary is available for viewing on You Tube. As a Ricardian, I thought the documents discovered in various European archives pretty convincing evidence that both young princes survived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For those who have not seen it, the documentary is available for viewing on You Tube. As a Ricardian, I thought the documents discovered in various European archives pretty convincing evidence that both young princes survived.

I watched it for a second time last night and I tend to agree. It will be interesting to hear what the historians opinions are. As 2 ‘camps’ have formed over the years let’s hope that we get complete objectivity.

[caz]

I'm going to get Mister Brown to watch both documentaries with me because he is adamant that Richard III was an evil bugger who murdered the two princes, and that Henry VII was a veritable saint by comparison. I hesitantly suggested that we get our history from the victors [or those with the loudest voices?], but I doubt he will be moved on this one. It will certainly give us "a heated debate" to enjoy - and Monty the cat can raise his eyebrows in a very "Oh my fur and whiskers" way.

By a genuine coincidence, he's currently reading Bosworth.

Mister Brown, that is. Monty Brown is currently in his basket, looking at the back of his eyelids.

Love,

Caz
X