To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

[HenryTudor1485]

He’s undergone a bit of a reappraisal recently but I’m not having it. He was a wrong un.

He clearly had his nephews killed. He had motive, means and opportunity. The dates when they “disappeared” all add up.

He done the crime. He never did the time (unless you consider being defeated in battle and being hacked to death “time”).

Very likely it was him, but I doubt we will ever know for certain.

His well known bias towards the Tudors and unquestionable acceptance of the statements by Thomas More put his theories under question.
Admittedly most people have their favourites of the period and as such their theories are just that.

Even Matthew Lewis - a professional historian who believes they survived - considers 'John Evans' an interesting theory but without sufficient evidence to make it compelling.

I haven't seen the YT but I think it's possible to have a bias to one side or the other and still assess evidence on a particular point with objectivity.

...and, most of all, he explains why it's nonsense.

If they did survive then it made no difference to our life today ...

A difference that makes no difference is no difference .... (discuss 😀)

His well known bias towards the Tudors and unquestionable acceptance of the statements by Thomas More put his theories under question.

Bet he doesn't.

Thanks for the link. I think Starkey is a bit of a nob as a person, but his analysis of (a) how there is an N there and (b) who John Evans probably was seems very reasonable

Yes /intriguing about Evans

Agree
We need dna testing.

Serendipity
I think you should start a thread on that

i bet mumsnetters could go on discussing that for 40 pages 🤣🤣

Did you watch the YT? What do you think of the points he makes? ETA sorry, I meant to quote @DrPrunesqualer.

But then when could they argue over mathematics ?

Quoting myself 😀

I don’t see how Starkey gets to “99% certain” John Evans went to France with Thomas Grey and Henry Tudor. But the theory that he was loyal to EIV/EV and in the household of one or both, and prospered enough to show that loyalty in later life, seems to be consistent with the facts and a lot less farfetched than the pseudonym theory!

This, I'm don't recall him saying 99% certain of any alternative theory, but he certainly debunked the hypothesis that there were clues indicating John Evans was one of the Princes. His alternative theory is plausible but isn't essential to the 'debunking'.