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 enjoyed it too. And the discoveries made are convincing. It was an absorbing programme.

What did you find convincing about them?

It's quite interesting how absolutely fixated the Tudors were on ensuring everyone know they were the only gig in town. Obviously they had learned from previous monarchs.

It's a while since I watched it but the 'compelling evidence' in the Rob Rinder one seemed to be that records showed a European noble (royal?) raising funds to support one of the Princes launching an 'invasion' to gain the throne in England, but that only proves that she believed the boy to be one of the Princes, not that he was.
I believe the bodies found in the chest at the Tower to be the Princes, they couldn't have escaped unnoticed even with substantial help. I understand the rationale behind leaving them to rest in peace but hope that one day they are DNA tested.
Confirming the bodies are the Princes wouldn't tell us who killed them / how they died but it would give a pretty good window of when and write of the pretenders as just that.

Yy @GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen

And of course any Yorkist (and I think this royal was the boys’ aunt) would have political reasons to want the pretenders to be real as well as personal reasons

It doesn't prove that she believed the person was genuine to be fair. She may have done, she may not.

There may have been other motives like preventing marriage alliances with another power because look how unstable England is.

Yes absolutely all it proved was some people were prepared to back the pretenders and we knew that anyway. But it was presented as 'Ahh here are records showing they supplied the campaign so it must have been the Prince' when I could have been 'ahh she fell for a con man' or 'it was in someone's vested interest to claim it was one of the Princes'.

Exactly!

Their elder sister Elizabeth (eventually married to HenryVII) was i think 4/5 years older than Edward v so maybe things would have been different had he been the elder.

as I sure having a minor as king would have worried the nobility after the war of the roses.

I think Richard or someone supporting Richard killed them, and would like them to exhume the bodies and don’t understand why they need the King’s permission!

This article explains why it was refused. It's from 2013 but still useful.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under

It looks like it's a decision the monarch rubber stamps so they follow the recommendation of the CofE and ministers.

Interesting, thank you!

I don’t think that the Church of England is the right organisation to make the decision, and think the rationale for not testing - at least as described in the article - seems weak.

‘it could set a precedent for testing historical theories that would lead to multiple royal disinterments.’……..what to do with the remains if the DNA tests were negative,…the tests could not establish "if Richard III is to be let off the hook".

Two boys went missing (one to be the king) , without trace at a time when the king ruled everything …. Makes no sense Richard iii didn’t know exactly what happened. The debate on this is hollow.

Exactly this. If the boys did 'go missing' without the Kings knowledge, Richard would have been in a right panic about where they were and the whole court would have been questioned.

Any idea that Richard would have been part of a plot to smuggle them away is complete fallacy. Smuggle them away so they can return in a few years with an army? He would have been signing his own death warrant!

I don’t think that the Church of England is the right organisation to make the decision,

The bones are currently in their urn on their property, though. So they can say no.

I am an atheist. But there is also the spiritual (and secular) concept of “rest in peace” - whether these are the royal bones or not, they are the bones of two children who died. To disturb them for curiosity after centuries at rest would be disrespectful, in the eyes of many.

Any idea that Richard would have been part of a plot to smuggle them away is complete fallacy.

i don’t think those who believe they escaped think that Richard planned it, do they? More the woodvilles or other relatives?

If Richard had nothing to do with it he wouldn’t have made himself King before doing thorough investigations. It was just airbrushed out of existence . I find it staggering that no one seemed to question what had happened, they just accepted Richard was to be King in place of his nephew. I wondered also what happened to their poor mother. She clearly knew Richard was a wrong ‘un. Her sons were imprisoned in effect and she never saw them again. Poor woman. There’s an untold story there.

It’s not curiosity though, it’s to acknowledge their fate and ensure they are remembered appropriately.

If Richard had nothing to do with it he wouldn’t have made himself King before doing thorough investigations.

Err, what? He made himself king after they were declared illegitimate, by him. They disappeared a couple of months after that.

I disagree.

The bones are currently properly buried as if they were the princes, with an inscription that assumes they were murdered.

If they are analysed and turn out to be unrelated bones, then they will have to be put elsewhere, and no one will remember those children.

Honestly, I am curious and would like them to be analysed, but I very much understand the argument for not doing it. Nothing changes, no one’s life is saved, no one different has the right to be king etc.

At least the speculation would end for once and for all.

I wondered also what happened to their poor mother

Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary during Richard’s reign (which was only around 2 years). Her eldest daughter Elizabeth was married to Henry Tudor after he defeated Richard in battle and became Henry VII, hence uniting the Yorkists and Lancastrians. Her descendants (via Elizabeth’s daughter Margaret, through Mary Queen of Scots etc) still sit on the throne.

So, like I said, curiosity 😀

If the bones are not those of the Princes, it doesn’t stop speculation as to whether they escaped or if they were simply killed and buried somewhere that has never been discovered.

If they are, then it doesn’t necessarily prove who killed them. I understand from Alison Weir’s book that the size of the skeletons are more consistent with the ages of the boys in RIII’s reign than two years later in HVII’s reign, but I am not sure how definitive that is to exact age at death.

But who gave them to the church of England to bury in that location, with those assumptions about whose they were and what happened? The crown?

It should be a government decision.

Hundreds of years of historians and others seeking information and evidence is much more than ‘curiosiity’.

If the bones turned out to be other children they could still be returned to the sane burial place.

Study of history and seeking evidence has benefits, beyond the field.

Testing the bones, if found that they are those of the boys, would be valuable evidence.

The potential benefits outweighs spiritual considerations for me & many others. Others will disagree.