Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[Kimberly]

Thanks for putting it so succinctly Arianwen.
Don't worry Louis Charles, at least you have a print of Richard III in your house

[Arianwen]

Thanks for putting it so succinctly Arianwen.
Don't worry Louis Charles, at least you have a print of Richard III in your house

Thanks for the compliments, Kim! I was doing what I could without 'Royal Blood' in front of me, and I think I'm picking it up at the library tomorrow, so I can post a few things.

I don't have a print of one of the Richard III paintings, but I have a sketch from the Richard III Society website that my brother filled in with coloured pencils and had framed for me as a birthday gift. I much prefer it to the paintings, and I get the feeling this is what he looked like when he was younger. My brother's REALLY talented, and if I can find a way to take the sketch out of its frame, I'll scan it for you lot.



Regards,
Arianwen

[Elisabeth]

Oh, I can't resist. Arianwen is going to kill me, but I have to leap into the fray... again. Louis Charles, you are not alone if you believe Richard III guilty. A lot of eminent historians agree with you, for example, Michael Hicks and A.J. Pollard, just to mention two names. But for a thorough and very accessible reexamination of all the evidence, I recommend Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower (although you've probably read it already, perhaps others haven't).

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.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion that the bones probably belong to the princes. I agree though, short of DNA testing, how will we ever know for sure?

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?

The reason Elizabeth Woodville handed over her younger son, the Duke of York, to Richard is that she had no choice but to do so. Richard had surrounded Westminster Abbey with his troops and she knew as well as anyone else that the Yorkists had a history of violating sanctuary. Elizabeth was also given numerous so-called guarantees of the boys' safety and reassured by Cardinal Bourchier himself that the Duke of York was needed only for his brother's coronation.  

[Kimberly]

Hi Elisabeth, re the bones: what circumstantial evidence. And, would it stand up in a murder trial? regards Kim.

[Kimberly]

Oh, and I am very sorry but I have to agree with Arianwen regarding Weir's "Princes in the Tower"utter manipulation .Sorry but that book infuriated me and NOT because it said what I didn't want to hear.

[Prince_Lieven]

I read Weir's book but I didn't really like it - I thought she set out from the beginning to prove that Richard is guilty, which is very unfair. She accepts some sources just because they have 'the ring of authenticity'! What kind of a reason is that??

[Kimberly]

Shame really isn't it. I have most of her other books and find them very good. Very disappointed.

[Prince_Lieven]

Yes, her Britain's Royal Families and Lancaster & York: the Wars of the Roses are indispensable, but I found this dissappointing . . .

[Elisabeth]

Hi Elisabeth, re the bones: what circumstantial evidence. And, would it stand up in a murder trial? regards Kim.

Hi, Kim! My answer is, this evidence wouldn't need to stand up in a murder trial, because history isn't a court of law and the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "what is the most likely and reasonable solution?" I.e., what is the simplest and most logical solution to the given problem. Kind of like Occam's Razor.

[Elisabeth]

I read Weir's book but I didn't really like it - I thought she set out from the beginning to prove that Richard is guilty, which is very unfair. She accepts some sources just because they have 'the ring of authenticity'! What kind of a reason is that??

Actually she bases much if not most of her narrative on Mancini, who historians agree is probably the most reliable and disinterested contemporary source that we have for this period. And for my discussion of Mancini's reliability, please see the thread about Richard III in the Windsors section (otherwise I'm just repeating myself!).

[Prince_Lieven]

Actually she bases much if not most of her narrative on Mancini, who historians agree is probably the most reliable and disinterested contemporary source that we have for this period. And for my discussion of Mancini's reliability, please see the thread about Richard III in the Windsors section (otherwise I'm just repeating myself!).

Did you not feel at any point in the book that her aim was to make us beleive Richard did it, and she did not really start writing the book with an open mind?

P.S: I'll trust you on the Mancini thing - I'm too lazy to find the other thread!

[Kimberly]

*Takes deep breath*
It is quite possible that the bones in the urn are not even the bones dug up in 1674. Having lain in a rubbish heap for some years before being "remembered"
When the urn was opened in 1933, the investigators were confronted by an assortment of bones both animal and human.
The examination by Tanner and Wright was conducted in 6 days.They had no reliable method of accurately dating age.
AGE;Pre-puberty, small, slender individuals with incomplete ossious fusion and tooth eruption.
SEX: Analysts had no way of determining sex.
CAUSE OF DEATH:No method of determining cause of death.They deduced that a "blood-stain"on one of the skulls "might indicate suffocation"
The identification of the skeletons was a "massive and unscientific leap of faith"

[Prince_Lieven]

Ah, Kim, you've finally woken up the Tudor forums this morning! Clearly this is something you feel strongly about . . .

[Kimberly]

1955 study -Krogman was not permitted to study the bones, he had to examine the 1933 report and study photographs.
CONCLUSION;1) Bones and teeth of the elder child suggest an age of9-11.
2) NO evidence to prove the skeletons were male.
3) The stain on the skull was not a blood stain resulting from death by suffocation.
The only FACTUAL conclusion regarding the bones is that they are pre 1674!
Now, back to cleaning the windows.

[Elisabeth]

Hello, again, Kim. I would have responded sooner but our server kicked me off the Net this a.m. and I couldn't get back until now.  

This is what I think about the bones. We might not know their sex or their precise age, but we do know that the bones belonged to two children. The princes were children: Edward V was twelve years old in the summer of 1483; the Duke of York was nine going on ten. We also know that the remains were probably those of royal children, because a scrap of velvet was found with them. Velvet was a very costly and rare fabric in the late medieval period, pretty much reserved for royalty. How many royal children were imprisoned in the Tower and died there? Moreover, how many royal children died and were buried in the Tower together and in secret, in unhallowed ground?

But finally I have to ask, what difference does it make to the issue of Richard’s guilt or innocence if the bones found in the Tower were not those of the two princes, since most historians agree that the princes were probably dead by the late summer or autumn of 1483, i.e., shortly after Richard’s coronation? Which fact still makes Richard III the prime suspect in their murders, especially given his illegal executions of Hastings, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute that same summer.