The Princes In The Tower: The New Evidence

[caz]

I think I recall one point being made in the doc, that when the princes were declared to be illegitimate, there would have been no need to murder them.

But I suppose it could have been a 'belt and braces' job, in the event [which came to pass] that their status be restored as rightful heir and spare.

Love,

Caz
X

[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.

That should be "attainted", not "strained". Autocorrect is not my friend.

[Fiver]

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

Might I suggest Winter King by Thomas Penn, a biography of Henry VII. It likely won't change his mind on Richard III, but it should disabuse him of the idea that Henry was a veritable saint in comparison. Henry's close supporters contained some notable scum, he executed a lot more people than Richard is accused of killing, and Henry faced revolts for basically the rest of his life.

[Fiver]

I think I recall one point being made in the doc, that when the princes were declared to be illegitimate, there would have been no need to murder them.

But I suppose it could have been a 'belt and braces' job, in the event [which came to pass] that their status be restored as rightful heir and spare.

Love,

Caz
X

Being attainted, barred from inheritance, didn't stop Edward IV, Richard III, or Henry VII from becoming king. Henry faced revolts in the names of Edward IV's and George of Clarence's son, even though all had been attainted.

The sons of Edward IV were a threat to Henry VII's crown as late as 1499, over 15 years after their disappearance. Yet Henry never produced any bodies, which he could have blamed on Richard.

[Lewis C]

I watched the documentary and found it interesting, but here's what I think is a good video that critiques some of what is in the documentary: https://youtu.be/tQ5FaYFnS2E?si=NKfmVJdPnEWX9R1M

[Fiver]

I watched the documentary and found it interesting, but here's what I think is a good video that critiques some of what is in the documentary: https://youtu.be/tQ5FaYFnS2E?si=NKfmVJdPnEWX9R1M

Thanks for sharing the video. It posts legitimate criticism of the documentary, but the video also makes assumptions. Richard offering no explanation for the boys fate is actually a point in his favor. Killing rivals is useless if people don't know that they are dead.

We also don't know when the boys disappeared. We know there were rumors in 1483 that the boys had been killed. Holinshed mentions more rumors in 1484. To me, the disappearance and reappearance of the rumors implies the boys were shown to be alive in 1483. The specific disinheriting of the boys by the Titulus Regius in early 1484 also implies they were known to still be alive at that point.

There is no evidence that the bones in the Tower belong to the Princes. They could be, but the remains seem to be too young, their gender was assumed, and the depth at which they were found was much deeper than standard burial depth.

The video using Thomas More, even with caveats, is baffling. His work accusing Richard the III was published in 1534, 25 years after Henry VII's death, 49 years after the death of Richard III. It appears to have been compiled around 1519 ad is riddled with what can only be considered nonsense. If Richard Tyrell, who was executed in 1502 for supporting a Yorkist claimant, had confessed to killing the Princes, then Henry VII would have had it shouted from the rooftops, not kept the story secret for decades. More's account also includes a man was appalled at the idea of killing the boys, but had no problem with handing over the keys to someone else, didn't find the boy's disappearance suspicious, and later died fighting for the Richard III. Or More's priest who in a single night working by himself buried both bodies inside a wooden chest under a cairn of stones. Nobody found this cairn inside the Tower grounds remotely suspicious or connected it to the missing Princes. Then sometime later, the nameless priest opened the cairn, dug up the bodies, moved and buried them somewhere else by himself in a single night without being detected. After which the nameless priest conveniently dies after not telling anyone where the bodies are.

[Enigma]

I watched the documentary and found it interesting, but here's what I think is a good video that critiques some of what is in the documentary: https://youtu.be/tQ5FaYFnS2E?si=NKfmVJdPnEWX9R1M

The emotive language used turned me off. According to this video, the young princes were "locked" in the Tower. The tower was a royal palace and it was usual for a monarch to stay at the Tower prior to being crowned so there was nothing unusual in Edward and his brother being there.

As for the bones being buried under the stairs. It is inexplicable this could have been done without detection. The Tower was home to possibly hundreds of residents. Someone would have to have noticed. The bones likely are Roman given the depth at which they were buried.

[caz]

Killing rivals is useless if people don't know that they are dead.

This is the bit that gets me.

It was pretty careless of a ruthless, murderous villain to allow for pretenders to turn up at some point and claim his throne, due to the princes merely disappearing without trace. If they were murdered and couldn't be displayed because foul play was too evident, why could Richard III not have arranged for the bodies of two obviously plague-stricken victims to be 'confirmed' as the dead boys instead? The fact that they disappeared didn't stop Richard from being suspected of having them killed, so I'm not sure what difference it would have made if he was also suspected of substituting their murdered bodies with two diseased ones. It would still have left no proof, but put more of a burden of proof on anyone claiming the boys had survived.

It would also have been fairly straightforward for Richard's enemies to have produced the skeletons of two boys of the right age, with clear signs that they had died violently, much earlier than those two sets of unidentified bones were found. But not such a good idea if it was known or suspected that the real princes had 'gone abroad', in either sense, in which case it would only have been a matter of time before they sprang back to life and identified themselves.

Another thing that keeps cropping up, as some kind of argument for and against the princes dying violently, is the fact that they were seen less and less often, which I have no problem with but proves nothing, and "gradually" disappeared - which is plainly nonsense. One day they must have been seen in the Tower for the last time; the next day they were not seen at all, regardless of whether they had been smothered in their beds, struck down with some highly contagious disease, or spirited away.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

The emotive language used turned me off. According to this video, the young princes were "locked" in the Tower. The tower was a royal palace and it was usual for a monarch to stay at the Tower prior to being crowned so there was nothing unusual in Edward and his brother being there.

But the Tower was also a prison, so being "locked" is quite consistent terminology.

As for the bones being buried under the stairs. It is inexplicable this could have been done without detection. The Tower was home to possibly hundreds of residents. Someone would have to have noticed. The bones likely are Roman given the depth at which they were buried.

One may wonder how many pairs of children are encased in the walls of the Tower?

The documentary certainly does raise some interesting questions, but sadly no direct names that can help unravel this mystery.

[Fiver]

One may wonder how many pairs of children are encased in the walls of the Tower?

Jean Molinet apparently claimed the princes were poisoned and then walled up inside their room. During the time Walter Raleigh was in the Tower a walled up room was found with the remains of two children. Molinet’s depiction of the place of burial was pretty accurate, considering it could have been anywhere. Molinet wrote before More and the walled up pair of bodies were found decades before the pair of bodies found ten feet underground.

[Enigma]

But the Tower was also a prison, so being "locked" is quite consistent terminology.

Certainly the Tower was both a prison and royal palace. The point I was trying to make was that by saying without giving any supporting evidence, the princes "were locked in the Tower" the documentary gave a biased impression to the viewer that they were possibly being held under duress when that may not have been the case. A more neutral phrasing IMO is appropriate.

In fact they were reported as being seen playing in the grounds of the Tower which indicates they were not subject to ill treatment, at least not initially.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m currently reading Philippa Langley’s book and I have to say that it’s an impressive book so far. She’s currently going through the various reports from the time around to the time after the disappearance of the Princes. It’s all rumour of course but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t have been an element of truth there. Various methods were suggested from smothering to ‘bleeding’ to starving to drowning to stabbing.

One thought that I can’t shake (not from the book so far) is that if Richard had ordered them killed wouldn’t it have been the easiest thing in the world to have ‘persuaded’ a tame doctor and a courtier or two to have claimed that the Princes had both caught some illness and died followed by a respectful funeral and burial with a distraught looking Richard in tow? Although there would still have been rumours after the now illegitimate Princes had died so conveniently though.

[Enigma]

Exactly Herlock. Had Richard ordered their deaths the easiest thing was to say that his beloved nephews succumbed to the sweating sickness despite the ministrations of the best physicians.

[caz]

It does seem like Richard was storing up trouble for himself, if he was responsible for their sudden unexplained disappearance.

As he was bound to be suspected of foul play anyway, the fatal sickness route would surely have been preferable to having imposters showing up in the future, and not beyond his wit to engineer.

Love,

Caz
X

[jason_c]

I think I recall one point being made in the doc, that when the princes were declared to be illegitimate, there would have been no need to murder them.

But I suppose it could have been a 'belt and braces' job, in the event [which came to pass] that their status be restored as rightful heir and spare.

Love,

Caz
X

I was never convinced by this argument. If the princes could be declared illegitimate they could easily be re-legitimised at some point. The illegitimate argument also depends upon the princes never, ever becoming a future cause that those discontent with Richard in England could rally around.

Ricardian's would have us believe the princes were not a threat to Richard but we're a threat to Henry. I can understand them being a threat to both Richard and Henry, at a push I can understand them not being a threat to either. However, the princes being a threat to Henry but not to Richard requires too many mental gymnastics imo.