Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[Kimberly]

Sorry, but I thought that the scraps of velvet were nothing more than an urban myth.

[Arianwen]

Sorry, but I thought that the scraps of velvet were nothing more than an urban myth.

Velvet was known in England as early as 1278, and on the Continent up to a century before that. Also, I've yet to see a source actually say that velvet was found with the bones. Therefore, IF velvet were actually found with the bones, they could have come from any time after 1278. That's assuming the velvet story is true, at least, which few people I know actually believe anymore. If there was no velvet found with them, the dating of the skeletons gets much more complicated.

Keep in mind we have four years between the bones being found, left on a rubbish heap, and someone saying, 'Hey, those might be the sons of Edward IV!' We don't even know if we're dealing with the same bones found.

As for Weir...she's unreliable at best, and downright maliciously biased at first. The argument we keep making here is that character judgement after 500 years is mere speculation. She treats her speculation as fact, and expects the reader to do the same. Also, she alters dates, locations, etc to fit her theories, lauds More, Mancini, the Croyland Chronicle, Vergil, and others as infallible until they agree with her. THEN, they're misinformed, have faulty memories, or simply got things wrong.

Also, as I pointed out before, the bones were found ten feet below ground level beneath a staircase in the White Tower. They were being kept in the Garden or Bloody Tower at the time. If the first time they were buried by Tyrrel was beneath a staircase, doesn't the Bloody Tower make more sense? Also, to dig at the base of the White Tower stairs, a staircase that was outside the tower in 1483, one would have to dig through limestone. That makes a hole two or three feet deep most likely, and the ground doesn't rise that much in two hundred years. Secondly, More states that Richard ordered the bodies reburied in consecrated ground, and that only Brackenbury knew the second location. That means the bodies would have been reburied somewhere on chapel grounds, which rules out the foot of the stair. Thirdly, doesn't More specifically state three times that the bodies weren't finally laid to rest at the foot of a stair? This means the bones found in 1674 couldn't have been the princes, according to More.

Then, if we look at the limited 1955 study, which had only the notes of the 1933 investigation to view, look at the holes punched in the earlier work. The 1933 team of Tanner and White was under considerable pressure from George V to determine that the bones were the princes, so therefore, they did. The 1955 study points out all the 1933 team failed to remember. The same missing teeth, when dealing with pre-pubescents who still would have had baby teeth, does not a familial relationship make. That's like me saying that I'm related to Hillary Clinton simply because we have the same missing teeth (completely hypothetical, I'm not missing teeth and to my knowledge, neither is she). It doesn't fly. Also, the 1955 investigation pointed out that sex of the skeletons could not be determined, and that the older of the two skeletons was probably no more than nine.

All in all, the circumstantial evidence is highly against the 1674 bones belonging to the princes. Besides, what about the pair of skeletons found in the 1640s, that we never hear much about? What about other bones that have been found in the past? Besides, when Tower Gate and the Thames are closer to the Bloody Tower than the White Tower, why bury the remains, dig them up, and rebury them in consecrated ground when you can weight the bodies and dump them in the Thames? Not the most reliable way of disposal, but if Richard was responsible, as you say, if the bodies float up, he could say they were murdered without his knowledge, and that looks most plausible than the boys simply disappearing, if he'd ordered them killed.

Regards,
Arianwen

[Kimberly]

Oh, thank you Arianwen, you back up my points excellently. It would be so fascinating if "they" gave permission for a re-investigation.

[Elisabeth]

No one's answered  my question! So I'll repeat it:

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.  

[Prince_Lieven]

I agree Elisabeth that the bones-are-the-boys issue is pretty much a moot point, since they are obviously dead . . . Knowing the bones-were-the-boys does not being us any closer to knowing who killed them . . .

[Kimberly]

Its all about PROOF isn't it? We cannot prove who was the culprit.
1) Richard 2). Henry 3) Buckingham. 4) Margaret Beaufort.
We cannot prove that the boys WERE killed in the Tower.
We cannot prove that the skeletons are those of the boys.
We cannoy prove that the boys WERE killed.
We can only surmise,analyse,guess, call it what you will and thats what makes it so fascinating surely?

[Prince_Lieven]

You're absolutely right Kim - it's all conjecture, theorising, estimation - we will never know, but it's fun to speculate.

Hmm . . . or perhaps we can prove it - I'll get Hercule Poirot onto it!! : - )

[Kimberly]

Better off with Inspector Clouseau

[Prince_Lieven]

Better off with Inspector Clouseau

LOL - or Inspector Frost!!!

[ilyala]

1. why does margaret beaufort's name keep coming up in here? i know, i read the webpage that accuses her, but where is the opportunity (even the motive is far off but that's another thing...)?

2. if the bones are the princes' or not, that will never prove that richard did it... or not... it would be nice to find their bodies but... what would that prove?

3. what about the 1640 bodies? i never heard anything of that... any more details?

[Prince_Lieven]

Re Margaret Beaufort. She most certainly had motive, ilyala. Henry was her only child, and her devotion to him was apparently close to idolatry. She was an intelligent woman, and would have known that with the princes out of the way, only Richard would have stood between Henry and the throne, and that Henry could marry Elizabeth of York, who would then be heiress to York.

[Elisabeth]

Re Margaret Beaufort. She most certainly had motive, ilyala. Henry was her only child, and her devotion to him was apparently close to idolatry. She was an intelligent woman, and would have known that with the princes out of the way, only Richard would have stood between Henry and the throne, and that Henry could marry Elizabeth of York, who would then be heiress to York.

This would make a good subject for a novel, but historically speaking, there's a major problem with this theory: Margaret Beaufort did not have access to the Tower. She might, might have had a motive (although if she did, then why didn't she kill Richard III, too? and Richard's son Edward?), but she did not have the means or opportunity to murder the princes. I don't know of a single serious historian who believes that MB had a hand in their deaths.

[Prince_Lieven]

This would make a good subject for a novel, but historically speaking, there's a major problem with this theory: Margaret Beaufort did not have access to the Tower. She might, might have had a motive (although if she did, then why did she not kill Richard III, too?), but she did not have the means or opportunity to murder the princes. I don't know of a single serious historian who believes that MB had a hand in their deaths.

Of course, I bow to your superior knowlege, Elisabeth.

[Arianwen]

No one's answered  my question! So I'll repeat it:

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.

I apologise, Elisabeth, I hadn't seen your question, and therefore, hadn't responded. At least to me, it makes a great deal of difference. If the skeletons don't belong to the princes, we have no conclusive proof they were murdered in 1483. They could have been killed in 1483, 1485 after Bosworth, or in 1486, when the two pardons were issued to Sir James Tyrrel within a month of each other. They might not even have been killed at all, as some scholars believe. Fields, who makes quite the effort to make a case and counter-case for every possibility, including Richard's guilt, which he disagrees with, has a particularly eyebrow-raising case for the boys surviving in anonymity. At the very least, it made even me, quite convinced that the boys were killed in 1483, re-evaluate my own opinion.

Also, I'd like to clarify something. When I criticised Weir, I didn't mean to imply that anyone who agreed with her conclusions was malicious and/or lacking in scholarship, and I heartily apologise to anyone who took it as such. My intention is to go to the library tomorrow and pick up Weir's book, 'Royal Blood', and a few other sources to back up my allegations that she changed facts, and if I find myself in error, I'd be glad to apologise publicly. I would just like to point out that my judgement regarding 'The Princes In The Tower' was made in my teenage years, when I was very much on the fence regarding Richard's guilt, and was even slightly leaning toward him having ordered the murders, not at all the staunch Ricardian you see today. I don't expect or particularly desire everyone to agree with my opinion, as it would make the study of history quite boring, so have we all agreed to disagree?

Regards,
Arianwen

[Kimberly]

I find it quite hard to see Margaret Beaufort as the big bad wolf in this but her name has come up several times now. (It never occurred to me that she could be implicated before). Surely, you don't have to personally have access to the Tower to be involved in the boys murders...... just access to a wallet full of money and the names of some people who would be willing to do the deed for that money?