Author Topic: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower  (Read 58117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2005, 01:52:45 PM »
Well Michael G ,as a wise man once said..."If we all think the same then none of us are thinking."
(so is it handbags at dawn then ;))
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2005, 01:53:59 PM »
(And that is not mean't to be offensive... its an old English saying!)
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2005, 01:56:22 PM »
Methinks that is your favourite phrase, Kim. : - )
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2005, 01:58:24 PM »
Nope, favourite phrase is "I am going to Tesco"
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2005, 02:06:52 PM »
I would imagine you use it often, Kim!
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2005, 02:10:04 PM »
Seriously though, there is an excellent thread on this subject over at the Windsors.
Member of the Richard III Society

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2005, 07:36:14 PM »
Quote
Well Michael G ,as a wise man once said..."If we all think the same then none of us are thinking."
(so is it handbags at dawn then ;))



I agree vive la difference.....Handbags at dawn then.

Offline Arianwen

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2005, 11:00:36 PM »
Quote
Seriously though, there is an excellent thread on this subject over at the Windsors.


Just look for the thread titled 'Richard III'. It's about five pages long, but it's actually the inspiration for this section (Elisabeth and I started talking about co-moderating after our vigourous, yet friendly and respectful debate on that thread). Most of my primary source material and my books by Kendall and 'Royal Blood' are being borrowed by my grandfather, who currently can't find them, but a lot of the information you'll need and/or links to it is on that thread.

Regards,
Arianwen

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2005, 03:00:36 PM »
My two great lost causes come together on one board --- Richard III and Anna Andersen!

The discovery of the children's bodies in the Tower combined with the fact that they were never seen after 1483 seems to point the finger at Richard III. If he didn't actually have them killed, he would have had to be complicit after the fact. Does anyone think that Elizabeth of York would have forgiven Henry Tudor for murdering her brothers? And Henry himself was careful not to claim the throne on the basis of his wife's bloodline. There was precedent in England for winning the crown through combat.

There is a portrait of Richard III hanging in my living room, though. So part of me will always want to believe in his innocence!
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2005, 04:08:28 PM »
Hi there Louis Charles, if I may point out something re the discovery of the bodies. There is no evidence that the skeletons are those of the boys. It is thought that the bones date back to the early middle ages but permission has been denied for any analytical tests to be done on them and I think the last time this happened was in the1930's-ages ago in scientific terms.
The other thing that puzzles me about the theory that Richard was a child murderer is this. If ElizabethWoodville thought that her son Edward was in mortal danger from Richard, why did she hand over the Duke of York to him for safe-keeping?No Richard IMO didnot do it .......look to Buckingham  8) Many regards Kim
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2005, 04:09:44 PM »
P.S my husband thinks that i am a lost cause too ;D
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2005, 04:51:54 PM »
 ;D So does my wife!

I guess I subscribe to the bones-are-the-boys theory because they were discovered where Thomas More had Tyrell burying them. And while I have heard that there is dispute regarding the antiquity of the bones, that the relevant ages of the boys is met by the bones. Again, this is all circumstantial evidence, but I think it is compelling.

But I respect the Ricardians who don't!

"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Arianwen

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2005, 10:46:47 PM »
Quote
I guess I subscribe to the bones-are-the-boys theory because they were discovered where Thomas More had Tyrell burying them.


Actually, not the case at all. More says the bodies were buried once and then dug up and reburied, but neither location matches where the bones were found (ten feet deep, at the foot of a staircase leading to the White Tower that would have been outside). More is quite adamant, stating three times that the princes were reburied NOT under stairs, that the second location was known only to Brackenbury, which means that the bones couldn't have been found where More said Sir James Tyrell buried them. The princes were being kept in the Bloody Tower, known as the Garden Tower at the time. Moving the bodies to the White Tower would have been noticed, and considering the bones were found ten feet below ground level, digging a grave this deep without being noticed, through rock and limestone, would have been well-nigh impossible. A depth of ten feet makes it highly unlikely these bones were from the late fifteenth century, but probably a much earlier date. Remember that the Tower grounds were the home to earlier fortresses dating at least to the Roman times, if not further back, and these bones could have come from any time period. We have no evidence of which century they came from (no velvet scraps were found with the bones, a popular urban myth, and even if velvet WAS found, velvet was known in England as early as 1278).

Something else to remember is that More states Richard ordered the bodies reburied in consecrated ground. If More is to be trusted, why would the bodies of the princes be found anywhere other than chapel grounds?

Also, the bones in the urn aren't even definitely the ones found in 1674. When the bones were found, they were put on top of a rubbish heap, and when someone first brought up the possibility that they were the princes FOUR YEARS LATER, they were hastily retrieved and interred as the princes' remains. That's why I have difficulty believing these were even the same skeletons dug up in 1674. Also, what about remains dug up in the 1640s that were thought to be the princes? My suggestion is to track down a copy of Bertram Fields' 'Royal Blood' and read his chapter regarding the bones. I find it impossible to believe these bones are the remains of the princes, especially after reading Fields.

Quote
And while I have heard that there is dispute regarding the antiquity of the bones, that the relevant ages of the boys is met by the bones. Again, this is all circumstantial evidence, but I think it is compelling.


http://richard111.com/Princes%20Project.htm

This sums things up brilliantly. It goes over the 1933 investigations, and also a lesser-known study done in 1955. We don't even know if the two skeletons are male, let alone definite ages. Remember that people were shorter back then (the average height of enlistment during the American Revolution was 5'2"), and pre-pubescent skeletons are notoriously difficult to determine age and gender. The 1955 study states that the elder of the two skeletons was probably not older than nine, which means they couldn't have been the princes.

In regards to a familial relationship with Anne Mowbray, the same teeth missing in child skeletons does NOT give any indication if they were related. With DNA technology, and the fact that we have the remains of both parents of the princes, why else would access to the bones be denied unless to avoid the embarrassment of the remains NOT belonging to the princes?

Quote
But I respect the Ricardians who don't!


Thanks! Just given all the evidence, I don't see how these bones could be the princes, but I certainly respect other viewpoints. :)

Regards,
Arianwen

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2005, 12:06:56 AM »
Thanks for the information, I have some reading to do!

Simon
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Arianwen

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2005, 02:07:37 AM »
Quote
Thanks for the information, I have some reading to do!

Simon


Glad I could help! Enjoy the reading. :)

Regards,
Arianwen