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.
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.htmThis 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?
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
