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

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)"

@IwantToRetire that has always my thoughts. I can imagine some toady proudly announcing to Richard that they have 'solved' the problem of the Princes and him being horrified.

Picking up on various comments.

According to the DM article the Will evidence is fairly new but has been reported via history networks,and at a conference. So history fans would have heard of it.

I think the Richard III distant relative was in Canada. Although I see from an article that in doing these blood comparisons they worked out that at some point in the generations infidelity had occured. oops! But through the female line they made the match.

Now I want a whole series of Silent Witness focusing on this aspect. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30281333 And maybe they could find descendents of Elizabeth Woodville?

The current Royal family wouldn't have any blood connections, seeing as they are more part of the Hanovarian and / or Stuarts. https://www.thebritishmonarchy.co.uk/monarchs-family-tree-1066-onwards

I never knew this!!

"The Queen's right to reign in based on the 1701 Act of Settlement that restricted succession to Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. A medieval false paternity does not challenge the current Queen's right to reign."

Just out of interest as you have studied it, how was the period of the Princes moving to the Tower after their father's death as new monarch and brother, to becoming prisoners, responded to by the public. I know 90% of the country probably had not idea, but in London and more privileged circles.

And then the claims about them being illigitimate, and then just gone.

Did the public care?

Just curious, but maybe this wasn't part of your research.

The DNA analysis from the bones of RIII will still be on record. The match to the carpenter guy (and later, to a woman - they found a second trace) was because they had proved that guy had a common female ancestor with RIII and it is mitochondrial DNA (passed down the female line) for which there was a match.

Because you have the DNA profile of a close male relative of the princes, that trace doesn’t need to be done again. If the bones in the Abbey could be tested and DNA extracted, then it would be like comparing uncle and nephew in the current day.

ETA you can’t test the bones of the princes or those of RIII against the royal family because the royals don’t have a line of female ancestors linking them to RIII, but a mix of male and female.

Exactly. That's the only way to know for sure.

Whether you are a Ricardian or not, John Ashdown-Hill’s book on the tracing of the female line down from RIII’s aunt was excellent.

My understanding is that the match to prove RIII had to be made through the female line. A, because infidelity but B, because mitochondrial DNA mutates less and it was 500 years and many many generations

See above, same bloke as the Richard III carpark thing

Thats really bad, I wonder what he has to say to that.

Welllll…. I rather suspect the whole “new discovery! Never seen before!” was overegged by C5. Though I think Tracy Borman shouldn’t have used phrases like “smoking gun” and whatnot.

I dont buy this, in the previous example, it was well known about, the king did penance for that (not saying Richard would or should have done) but it wasnt just silently moved on from. There doesnt seem to be any contemporary narrative about their disappearance, slowly being seen less and less until nothing else.

If they were killed by mistake, you would expect that this gave voice to why they were not around, why Richard then gets himself crowned. And a proper solution to his legitimacy as a king and avoids the risk of someone cropping up in the future to claim they were the king (which happened)

This is a different one.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one. Not everything needs a conspiracy theory and the idea Richard III wasn't guilty of ordering their deaths is just daft imo.

Would be really have let them live, in such a bloody and turbulent time, when they could return as men a few years later with an army to reclaim the throne?

He declared them illegitimate, so why do people think he had any sort of moral compass. They were killing their kin left right and centre in those days to get power, it wasn't unusual!

There are many contemporary accounts that show Richard had a cruel side, he was no saint. The fact their was propaganda during the Tudor times to paint him as an exaggerated pantomime villain doesn't mean he want innocent of all charges.

He declared them illegitimate, so why do people think he had any sort of moral compass.

Wellll - if they were illegitimate, it was moral to say so. Obviously possible someone paid Bishop (?) Whatsit to say Edward IV was pre contracted to Eleanor Butler, but also possible that EIV had indeed done that. Marriage was a bit more fluid back than, with pledges and shagging being enough to be an impediment to future weddings.

ETA I think RIII probably ordered it done, cos even illegitimate sons hanging around were dangerous.

I think Richard was astute enough to know that killing of young boys would be regarded as a step too far. I think he had them at the tower while he tried to think of a way out of the situation/engineer an event that could justify their deaths. If he was brazen enough to have them killed why not own it? Killing them in secret doesn't remove the pretender threat as history shows.

Isn't Camilla PB descended from Elizabeth Woodville? So her DNa could be useful.

i didn’t know that.

I find Ricardians fascinating, because they are full-on in their protagonist-centered morality. If Richard did something, it had to be for a good reason, and be the right thing to do. If it were bad, he didn't do it.

I really enjoyed this article: https://www.cityam.com/the-princes-in-the-tower-history-is-not-a-whodunnit/

Richard III would still be the man who introduced positive laws for the commons if he ALSO killed the princes.

My favourite historical person was a right whiner in some ways, and had two marriage breakdowns. But he was still an unsung hero for what he did.

(For the record, that's Armin Wegner. A rich German soldier who documented the Armenian Genocide during WWI, and was exiled/persecuted in Germany because he used his position to advocate for Jews well before the Holocaust because he recognised the path they were treading. His rather pitying epitaph is "I loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I died in exile").

Just to clarify I'm definitely not a Ricardian - I'm a Lancastrian and think it was evil Yorkists 'wot dun it'. I just thank Richard knew enough to know that killing the boys but not being able to let on that they were dead did nothing to strengthen his dodgy grip on power. Getting rid of rivals doesn't work if the ground swell of population option can still be rallied to that rival (or someone claiming to be them).

Getting rid of rivals doesn't work if the ground swell of population option can still be rallied to that rival (or someone claiming to be them).

Then Henry VII must have cursed him for leaving that little problem 😀

Oh no, I wasn't accusing anyone on this thread! I love the discussion. I'm less informed than I'd like to be because my mum IS a Ricardian, and I automatically tune out her obsession :D

Yes, I would agree. Richard was a man of his time and I don't believe he would have shrunk from doing dirty deeds. He was involved in a fair few before he took the throne.

Just because he did some things that are seen as good doesn't absolve him of doing bad things too.

You had to be ruthless to survive in those times if you were involved in politics.

The daughter of time by Josephine tey is an excellent read - fiction (or is it 😂) it regularly comes up on 100 best crime books to read

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B0D8JCMDW8/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.vayLkA_6N6aVX-fZaUz5XJ_7jhBrb_bkhvEdUP1tNbwKXqs7inzeJimNoWojhOCP4xZrZD6EmpsktrvXtYEONpmU_XCInkkppCWLmBwKCgAxp5QQ7xCwS8tJQjsC2SAi_kn55_xjGoVTp9Zc2Ubg_scmS2mZ2KhTHHyg5i-bgYx4CJqRkA8m-5v-rx-7SZLpOLJLJWokab25lqQrz6SsSg.89PJz7tIRR-tTLVmmI2nqmVxgcQb9kCvrtO9-48BXYg&qid=1733403031&sr=1-1

There were all sorts of rumours swirling around at the time. It depends what you mean by the public. Most ordinary people probably didn't know much about what was happening (outside London).

Edward moved to the Tower from the Bishop of London's palace and it wasn't seen as sinister because tradition dictated that prior to being crowned the monarch spent time there. Once his brother joined him there they were seen less and less. Then gone.

The coronation was initially postponed for a few weeks then months, then scrapped altogether.

iirc people were pretty nervous about a northern army descending on London. Richard had raised one, and that wasn't a secret although it was hanging around in Pontefract while most of this stuff was happening.

I think it was all unclear at the time, to begin with people were worried about potential unrest/all out war which had broken out sporadically over the course of the 15th century. As Richard had possession of the children there wasn't an obvious leader for dissent.

It’s also interesting to ponder whether Richard’s son surviving, or him having had an heir and a spare, would have swung things more in his favour. Stability was sorely lacking in the monarchy at that time.