The Princes In The Tower: The New Evidence

[c.d.]

I have a question -- if the princes actually did escape why didn't heads roll in the Tower as a result? Wouldn't Richard have been furious at their jailers? And wouldn't an all out effort have been made to capture the princes?

Or could it be that Richard didn't want their escape to be known?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The thinking is that when Henry married Elizabeth of York, who was the sister of the two princes, they were ‘legitimised’ again and so became a threat.

[Enigma]

The thinking is that when Henry married Elizabeth of York, who was the sister of the two princes, they were ‘legitimised’ again and so became a threat.

Exactly. Henry VII had the Act "Titulus Regius" which delegitimized the young princes repealed without even being read. That in its self is highly unusual because an Act is usually read as part of the repeal process.

With the Act's repeal, Edward automatically became king.

[Lewis C]

I have a question -- if the princes actually did escape why didn't heads roll in the Tower as a result? Wouldn't Richard have been furious at their jailers? And wouldn't an all out effort have been made to capture the princes?

Or could it be that Richard didn't want their escape to be known?

c.d.

I think that Langley's view is that Richard removed the princes from the tower, so heads wouldn't have rolled because it was what Richard wanted to be done. If this were the case, I think that it would follow that Richard didn't want it to be known where the princes were.

[jason_c]

The thinking is that when Henry married Elizabeth of York, who was the sister of the two princes, they were ‘legitimised’ again and so became a threat.

This may well be true. However, my main point was that it's quite preposterous to believe that the princes(legitimate or otherwise) posed no potential threat to Richard. They quite obviously did. Even if your of the opinion Richard did not have them killed. The threat was enough for Richard to keep them held in the tower with very little(if any?) communication with the outside. I think it's almost certain Richard had them killed. We have seen enough modern tyrants behave similarly to Richard; marginalise your opponents, bring them down with some legal manoeuvring, have them done away with either publicly or privately. It should ring everyone's alarm bell that from the moment Richard had the princes in his 'custodianship' their power (and ability to communicate with allies & family) decreased alarmingly quickly.

[c.d.]

I think that Langley's view is that Richard removed the princes from the tower, so heads wouldn't have rolled because it was what Richard wanted to be done. If this were the case, I think that it would follow that Richard didn't want it to be known where the princes were.

Thanks, Lewis but this confuses me more. Didn't Richard consider them a threat? If so, why would he want them free?

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Thanks, Lewis but this confuses me more. Didn't Richard consider them a threat? If so, why would he want them free?

c.d.

I forget the exact argument she made, but I think the idea was that he moved them to someplace where they would still be under the control of an ally of Richard. That begs the question of at what point the princes did gain freedom, and I don't remember her answering that.

[Pcdunn]

Well, I've subscribed to this thread. I vaguely recalling hearing about a tv doc about the "princes in the tower", but as I didn't know of the Missing Princes Project, I was unaware there was "new evidence", skipped the program. I'll look it up and do some research on this topic.

I do recall Ms Langley and the discovery of Richard Iii's bones in the parking lot. She struck me as a very sentimental "fan" of King Richard, even commenting that the recreation of his face was "handsome" or "pleasant", or at any rate not as hideous as Shakespeare and "common knowledge" would have believe he had been.
My caveat is that if this project was started by Langley to further "rehabiltate" the King's reputation, there could be charges of a hoax. She is wise to lay low as far as social media goes, I think. If there really are documents in various archives that seem to support the boys living in exile, that is interesting and encouraging.

Have forensics been done on the bones found in the Tower?

[caz]

Hi Pat,

I believe only the monarch can give permission for those bones to be DNA tested. Elizabeth II always refused, and at present there is no sign of Charles allowing it, but it's early days. It would be good to know one way or another.

I very much doubt that Langley could reasonably be accused of a hoax. Despite - or because of - her personal crusade to save Richard III's reputation, I would like to think she cares about uncovering the truth, and would have no interest in twisting the evidence to fit her beliefs. It's the way she chooses to interpret that evidence that is open to legitimate criticism.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for the info, Caz. Very interesting, about possible royal remains being under different rules than those of the rest of us.

I don't seriously think Ms. Langley is a hoaxer, but her marked fondess for the maligned Richard had really impressed me in the previous documentary. Granted, I know little about Elizabeth I's ancestors, except for Shakspeare's Histories and dramas like "Lion in Winter."