To wonder which ‘history facts’ aren’t true.

[LeslieKnopefan]

I understand that history isn’t always true and the further we go back in time the harder it is know what the truth is and what is simply made up.

However I recently posted that I thought it was true that Marie Antoinette hair turned white overnight after her best friends head was paraded in front of her and that I only realised it wasn’t when I told a mate who pointed out it couldn’t be true.

So which history facts that people think are true are known to be lies?

Interestingly, the original Yorkist claim to the throne was through the female line, but Richard decided to take the throne himself rather than let any of his sister's sons accede. I think his oldest nephew was declared heir at some point after Richard's own son died though.

old weasel face HVII

You're not a member of a Facebook group called Ricardian by any chance, are you?

you said Richard wouldn’t have killed the kids because people wouldn’t want a child murderer on the throne, but then you said hiding their death/murder is of no advantage to him. Which is it?

Henry IV had Richard II murdered in pontefract castle and remained King. I'm pretty sure that as a king Richard could have killed the boys and had people agree they had died of a fever - he would have had the power to make it go away. If he needed them to be dead (which he didn't - Titulus Regulus and all) then he needed them to be publicly dead, but so that people wouldn't blame him. Heck - he could have murdered them and then framed an enemy for it. But just vanishing them served no purpose!

You say people were happy to have a man on the throne rather than a child, but then you say their being alive would have caused an uprising. Again, which is it
I say the general public are happy with an adult king. They would not want an uprising after all those years of civil war. But that doesn't mean that nobles hoping for their own slice of power wouldn't cause trouble in the boys name. Not for the boys sake - for their own. It wouldn't necessarily get very far but it would still be a pain in the arse that could be avoided if the boys were known to be dead. After all - any uprising would be one of naked greed and ambition hidden as Edwardian loyalty. Take away the ability to claim Edwardian loyalty and all you have is some Duke trying to depose the crowned king. They are far less likely to try that.

were of a size that indicated the boys were the right age for RIII's reign not HVII's.
Children's bones are notoriously difficult to sex or age. Richard was king between 1483 and 1485. Henry VII became King the day Richard died in 1485. The idea that the size of the bones (and the fact that they were boys) means it happened some time after August 1483 but well before August 1485 is ludicrous.
Add in the fact that they were not and never have been carbon dated... pinning an exact date on those bones is ridiculous.

"were of a size that indicated the boys were the right age for RIII's reign not HVII's."

Difficult to date accurately when the period could be as short as two plus to three years, though?

Hmm. But those are childhood years, I forget the exact ages but weren't they 9-12 and 11-14 or similar, so growth spurt times? Not like 20-23 or whatever.

I doubt there can be a conclusive answer,!

"means it happened some time after August 1483 but well before August 1485 is ludicrous."

Cross post. It's not ludicrous. It's a piece of evidence. There will be a range of more-and-less probable dimensions for bones of children that age. Hence I used 'indicated' not any words that implied that it was definitive.

I think this is a bit of a stupid question, but I'm going to ask anyway- if bones that are believed to possibly be those of the princes were to be dna tested, would that even help identify them? Whose dna would we be looking to match theirs to?

Theres a few Plantagenets knocking around still IIRC

Possibly the same guy whose DNA was used to identify the bones of Richard III? No wait, it has to be matrilineal descent doesn't it? So a descendent of Elizabeth Woodville? I'm not an expert in this area!

Maybe that guy in Australia who was in the Tony Robinson show. Although I think he might be dead now, but he had children.

since that is a complicated question.

The Queen won’t allow them to be DNA tested and it’s up to her. There are so many potential (ahem) skeletons in the closet around that period that it’s not really in the royals interests to do it.

There are questions over the parentage of Edward IV too, so the bones of Richard III could throw up interesting questions if compared with him. I think the obvious one to test against would be the Prince’s sister Elizabeth of York who was, of course, Henry VII wife and is buried next to him in Westminster Abbey. She is buried in a lead coffin though and it would be very difficult to obtain a sample without seriously disturbing the remains. It’s like opening a tin can.

" I think his oldest nephew was declared heir at some point after Richard's own son died though."

Yes, the consensus seems to be that while there was no official designation, Richard's awarding Lincoln the estates and revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall was in effect declaring him heir. And acknowledging that Edward of Warwick's claim, although stronger as through the male line, was efffectively invalidated by his father's attainder.

"You're not a member of a Facebook group called Ricardian by any chance, are you?"

Nah, I'm not a member of any history group. I was just being silly.

The 300 at Thermopylae. Actually more like 7000 and even the famous rear guard weren't 300 more like 1400. Leonidas also wasnt a 40 year old in his fighting prime as portrayed in all the stories, he was actually in his 70s at time and had several sons as heirs. He did dismiss the bulk of the army to prepare defences at home and kept all the older warriors who had sons to carry in their line with him. The idea was that their bravery would act as inspiration in that particularly Spartan way.

It's still a belter of a story and they did slow up the Persian Army who vastly outnumbered them but actually 1400 was about the optimum number needed to defend the pass anymore would have hampered things.

"I think this is a bit of a stupid question, but I'm going to ask anyway- if bones that are believed to possibly be those of the princes were to be dna tested, would that even help identify them? Whose dna would we be looking to match theirs to?"

I read that Camilla is related to Elizabeth Woodville..who was their mother, so they could use her.

Elizabeth Woodville is their mother. Elizabeth of York is their sister.

I'm loving that centuries old history still inspires such passion. Thanks to this thread, my kindle is filling up with books.

Liz70 the maintenance comment amused me way more than it probably should

Thinking of maybe changing my username to Rich's Bitch of Gloucester. Whaddya think?

sorry, I'll try to be more serious

.

Cross post. It's not ludicrous. It's a piece of evidence.

It's a piece of crap evidence. I studied archaeology at uni. I know all about the difficulties of ageing skeletons and sexing skeletons. And that carbon dating comes with a margin of error - and when the bones haven't even been carbon dated - then yes, saying 'this is a skeleton from 1483 and not 1485' is unsubstantiated and ludicrous.

Besides, you only have to look at children today to see the massive height differences you can have for children of the same age - 'about 12' could easily be 10 or 14 in reality.

At the time of being found - the bones were broken and fragmented and mixed up with animal bones. Two skulls were found but they actually had no way of knowing how many bodies they were looking at, or how long many of the bones would be. They were not in a good condition to age - even if ageing child skeletons were easy - which it isn't!
And those skeletons may predate or post date Richard's reign by decades - centuries even.

These are not the only skeletons of children that have been found in the tower - plenty of others have been discovered - and attributed to being the princes.

The reason these particular skeletons became the official princes in the tower is because the workmen who found them said they had scraps of velvet wrapped around their bones (so royal) and they were buried at the foot of a staircase - Like Thomas Moore said they were.

But Thomas Moore also said that they were laid out naked (so where's the velvet coming from?). And that on hearing they were put at the foot of a staircase Richard had them moved to some place more appropriate (so ...they shouldn't still be there in 1647 when they were found). So the bodies actually contradict the historical source that reported them.
(Not that Thomas Moore is a good source - but the legend that these are the missing prince's bones comes from them meeting only some of the criteria that Moore placed down i.e not a very good claim at all.)

The last time those bones were looked at was 1933. The scientists were working from the assumption that they were the princes and were primarily looking for evidence of suffocation. They agreed they were 'about the right ages' - but were predisposed to find that - but they had no proof of when they died (everyone is 12 at some point!) and they didn't attempt to sex the bones (although that is difficult with pre pubertal bodies). The bones were fragmented and in poor condition - pretty difficult to tell anything significant about them - not that they were looking.

Like I said - it is a ludicrous claim that those bodies date from Richard's reign and not Henry's (or anybodies pre 1647 and post the introduction of velvet for that matter! and even the velvet claim - that was what one anonymous eyewitness saw. They could have been mistaken. Once the velvet is removed those bones could come from anytime in history - they could even predate the tower itself. A skeleton has been found there, that went through all 'it's a prince' drama only to be discovered to be iron age. And then there was the body of the 'prince' found locked in a high tower room that turned out actually to be an ape that had escaped from the menagerie... )

I stand by the word 'ludicrous'.

Liz I dare ya

Liz I second that!

A very interesting, thought-provoking and persuasive post, icant. Thanks.

Why do people keep saying the queen won’t ever allow the “princes’” bones to be tested? Surely it would be completely irrelevant to her what the outcome was. It all happened a looooong time ago.