The Princes in the Tower Channel 5 - A Damning Discovery

[soupfiend]

Did anyone see this last night, with Tracy Borman

Ive been on the fence for a long time about Richard III particularly after a documentary with Judge Rinder which put doubt onto the theory of Richard being the instigator of the deaths but now I feel swayed again!

I wont say too much about what they found in case people are yet to watch it but Im convinced it was Richard

I thought this was really badly done.

Much too long, and only ever put forward evidence that made Richard look the likely culprit.

Would have been much better to have gone straight to the new evidence, and investigated that in detail.

Suggest that anyone who knows the sequence of events skips through to the last half hour!

The Richard III Society started an interesting tweet along last night, https://x.com/rsociety_iii/status/1863969422228013435, but stopped midway through as people were being rude in replies. I thought it was an interesting counterbalance to the program.

Thanks - that thread seems to have disappeared ...

Agree that the pacing was rubbish.

They treated the new evidence as super-conclusive, and they spent 75 fucking minutes on the run up to it.

It would have been far better sticking to an hour - first 15m background on the main different theories, 15m on the build up to the reveal, then explore more around the evidence, and do a bit on next steps of research - more into the IL family, and the Forest connection.

That said, I do think that it's thrown up some interesting rebuttals to the "Moore as an unreliable Tudor stooge" argument from Ricardians. My mum is not quite a paid up member of the society and was very dismissive, but she's very biased :D

I seem to be a lone voice, I enjoyed it!

My OH thinks Richard has been stitched up so he didnt agree the programme found anything unbiased but I was really shocked by the information they found

I watched it, agree it could have been done in half the time. Did seem to be new evidence but not 100% conclusive.

I still think that the bodies in Westminster Abbey should be exhumed and tested to see if they are the princes.

I thought the latest theory was that they lived and moved to Europe ?

Make your minds up ...

https://metro.co.uk/2023/11/17/princes-tower-may-fled-europe-instead-killed-19840866/

E2A: Phillipa Langley is a bit well.... but you can't say she didn't find Dicky 3.

It went on so long I got bored and although it was on til the end, I couldn't tell you what the new evidence was as I'd switched off from it.

Says it all really.

She isnt a historian though but is good for entertainment.

Couple of things from last night

• how do we know that Miles Forest had a son also called MIles and that this M Forest was Miles Forest. Forest is not that rare a surname
• why would James Tyrell give away the chain of office to a family member, if you were involved in a dodgy 'disappearing', wouldnt you dispose of the chain of office/melt it down/give it to the new King etc etc
• The remains definitely need DNA testing but I think the Royal Family have never agreed.

I broadly think RIII did it, but this programme was shit.

The Will has been known about for a couple of centuries, it’s not new.

Even if M Forest was the son of Miles Forest, doesn’t mean his dad sat him down for a merry tale of regicide (seems more likely one takes that to the grave, if it happed that way!) and why would MF tell Thomas More?

Why would the chain still be with Edward in captivity rather than, say, in the royal treasure house? From whence it might have been sold off or gifted and later made its way into the family of… the half sister of the wife of James Tyrell. Or that said lady didn’t write down what she had heard about its provenance, which is unproven.

The will has been known about?

How come the bloke said something different?

There is still the obvious explanation, which is that an over eager Richard supporter took on the solve the issue for Richard.

Not saying this is true or a fact.

But quite a lot of historicall events are along the lines of "who will rid me of this troublesome (whoever)"

Also we dont know that the chain (whatever it is called ) is the actual one. And as said up thread, if it was would you name it in a public document. Unless the woman whose will it was, was so unpolitical as to not be aware of naming it.

All this and more could have made a really interesting programme, but what seemed like hours or inconsequencial trivia, let alone tourist inspired stories.

It could have been a short documentary with the option to become a series, as with the new clue they could have done more research.

I wonder if in fact the programme was made because of the contents of this will being found, and realising that could be covered in 5 minutes they dreamt up a way to make 90 minutes long!

Yes, I even wondered if the M Forest could have been the original M Forest - it didn't say Myles.

I think the chain would merit further investigation - was it sold/smelted/passed down?

And of course the DNA should be tested - but it wouldn't solve anything!

It could have been really interesting if they had spent more time on the evidence not the story.

Lots of the defence of Richard is very circumstantial/behavioural. But historical evidence doesn't work in the same way as a modern court of law. You have to assume large parts of the evidence are missing, and that the behaviours/motives of the individuals will most likely be wholly different from our own.

I always thought Richard did it. He had motive, means and opportunity. All the other theories seem a bit far fetched to me. I did the topic for my dissertation at uni. It was fascinating reading all about it and visiting the Richard III museum in York, Tower of London, Ludlow etc.

People seem to get very worked up about it though. Would be great if definitive proof were found but I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure.

If you dont mind a daily mail link, lots of other bits of information. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14152173/Defenders-Richard-III-Princes-Tower-murdered-conjecture.html

But agree with PP, we will never really know.

And on reflection it is strange with the Royal Family trying to be more "in touch" that they wont allow bone analysis.

(I wish everybody would stop using that hopelessly romanticised victorian painting of the two boys)

Well the DNA would prove it was them (if of course it did) rther than this theory that they got away.

True! I forgot about the escape theories for a moment there...

I just watched it and agree with @IwantToRetire .

Boreman claiming that the will evidence was the most compelling ( or whatever the word was that she used) piece of evidence she's heard of. What - more compelling than all those documents from the Continent that were discussed in the Rinder documentary? Does she even know about these?

And the emotional "poor innocent children" angle did a lot of heavy lifting.

Very one-dimensional and disappointung.

I'm interested in the DNA. Who would they compare it to ?
How could they prove it ?

I thought the Rinder documentary was better.

Well they proved that the body in the car park was Richard III by doing DNA and comparing it with some bloke in Australia. From memory, might have got that wrong somewhere.

Hopefuly they have saved his DNA in case those bodies are ever exhumed.

@IwantToRetire

Thank you for reminding me of the episode in the first (and best IMO) series of The Black Adder where Brian Blessed's KIng Richard IV (yes, we know) is recounting Henry II's words about Thomas Becket, but his wife can't hear so he shouts in true BB fashion "WHO WILL RID ME OF THIS TURBULANT PRIEST?"

The rest, as they say, is not history.

As an aside, why has BB never got a knighthood? I can only think he's been offered and refused it.

Apropos the thread, I don't think the will was the smoking gun they made it out to be but I do suspect that there's a fairly strong probability that the skeletons are those of the Princes.

I thought I'd just watched this, but now I'm wondering if I watched the wrong thing.

The one I watched had Judge Rinder in.

Telly, innit?

thetudors.substack.com/p/new-evidence-in-princes-in-the-tower?utm_campaign=email-post-title&utm_medium=email

Whom would you be testing for the comparison, though? the link with the current royal family is pretty tenuous.

I'm confused

is there new evidence? The will isn't a new discovery?