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

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

No they couldn’t - the inscription is all about “here lie the foully murdered princes” They would probably be moved to another church.

I am not knocking curiosity! Without it, the human race wouldn’t have got far. As I said, I would love to know too. But I understand the argument.

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?

Don’t know - they were discovered in the Tower of London during the reign of Charles II, I think. But crown and church were more indivisible at that time. I suppose they could have been buried or interred in the chapel in the Tower along with Anne Boleyn etc, but Westminster Abbey has a lot of Crown associations with coronations etc, so v sensible place to put them.

ETA it was Charles II, in 1674

Here’s the history of the interment

Sir Thomas Chichley informed Charles II of the discovery. Knight recalled that: ‘upon the presumptions that these were the Bones of the said Princes, His Majesty King Charles II, was graciously pleased to command that the said Bones should be put into a Marble Urn, and deposited among the Reliques of the Royal Family in the Chapel of King Henry the Seventh, in Westminster Abbey.'
Preparations for the internment were put into action, and no expense was spared. On 18 February 1675 Sir Christopher Wren was issued with a warrant ordering him to provide the urn. Wren is considered by many to be Britain’s greatest architect – perhaps best known for designing St Paul’s Cathedral and re-modelling Hampton Court Palace.
After Wren’s designs, the monument was executed by Joshua Marshall, the King’s Master Mason. Marshall was an equally prestigious choice, executing such well-known sculptures as London’s Monument to the Great Fire of 1666 and the equestrian statue of Charles I at Charing Cross.
The urn was installed in the Henry VII Chapel in 1678.

And if it was the latter Richard would have conducted thorough investigations, probably imprisoning the whole Woodville family. And he would have made it very public too.

Yes, quite possibly.

Like I said, I think he ordered it, but I also think that was a sign of the times, where killing your rivals was very common.

Yes I agree @SheilaFentiman , it wasn't seen as abnormal for those in power to kill their brothers, cousins, any kin. They were bloody times indeed. But it was probably seen as a step too far for Richard to publicly claim he had ordered the killing of two innocent young boys (especially as many still saw one of them as the rightful king), so no wonder it was kept quiet.

Elizabeth Wydeville returned to court with her daughters after the disappearance of the Princes, and helped in secret to broker the marriage of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor before the invasion. She later retired to a convent at Bermondsey and died there in her 50s.

They were found during the reign of Charles II I believe, by workmen making alterations to a staircase in the tower. That fits with the description of where they were buried according to the confession reported by Thomas More (I think)

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.

There are two series about her. The White Princess and The White Queen.

Although they too created lots of comments about this isn't or couldn't be true.

First series much better, and second series confusing as not all characters were played by the same people!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-White-Princess-Season-1/dp/B077H4GLSQ

The White Princess is about Elizabeth of York, sister of the Princes and DD of Elizabeth Woodville.

It’s also a work of fiction - Philippa Gregory is a decent historical novelist but she’s not above chucking in the dramatic theory that EofY was in love with RIII, say (based on the books, I haven’t seen that TV series).

Elizabeth Wydeville returned to court with her daughters after the disappearance of the Princes, and helped in secret to broker the marriage of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor before the invasion.

I thought this was just as much part of Henry's mother's life that her family had a better claim to the throne than the York family. ie the marriage of Elizabeth and Henry was a marriage between York and Lancaster.

Philippa's Gregory's books are entertaining enough but need to be taken with a large spoon of salt. Yes there were rumours that Richard III wanted to marry Elizabeth of York (his niece!) to strengthen his claim to the throne - after the two princes, she was her father's heir, illegitimate or not. And the marriage between her and Henry VII was to strengthen his rule for the same reasons. However most historians agree Henry and Elizabeth's marriage was a happy one - he is not known to have had any mistresses (unlike most kings), and he was in deep mourning after her death.

Gregory makes out they hated each other due to Elizabeth's love for Richard, and she only supported him in the end to protect her own children - as any Yorkist claim to the throne would put her children at risk. In the Tv series she even sees her own 'brother' put to death when he 'returns' years later as Prince Richard, for this very reason.

Yes sorry, I got the titles wrong way round.

The White Queen is about the mother of the Princes and whether or not her marriage to their father was legitimage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp

Phew, hope I've got it right this time ...

I enjoyed the programme, but I didn't feel that it was definitive evidence one way or the other. I think we are destined to never know the full facts for sure.

DNA from the two children's skeletons would be interesting, although I am not sure whose it could be compared to today - that of the king under the car park? Are there any known living descendants of either branch of their families, either on the Lancastrian or Yorkist sides?

It's a story that both horrifies and fascinates me in pretty much equal measure.

I take all historical dramas with a piece of salt.

In fact my doubts as a youngster about Richard III being a complete villian are solely in response to Shakespeare, who was basically just PR for the Tudors and never about history.

So when I later read The Daughter of Time, I was inclined to believe it. At least as much if not more than Shakespeare!

King Charles is a direct descendant of Elizabeth of York (the princes' sister) - she is his 15x great grandmother (assuming there all children's fathers are who they were supposed to be)

Yes, the DNA would be compared to RIII’s dna analysis as their closest relative. Otherwise it could be compared to the heirs through the same line as proved it was RIII, but RIII himself should be fine.

But my understanding is that it only works over 500 years through the female mitochondrial DNA, because this has fewer mutations (also infidelity issues)

I don’t know also if there is a risk of not getting DNA from the bones - not sure if there are conditions that lead to dna being lost.

In fact my doubts as a youngster about Richard III being a complete villian are solely in response to Shakespeare, who was basically just PR for the Tudors and never about history.

To be fair to the Stratford Scribbler, he probably had a reasonable desire to ensure his head stayed on his body so felt obliged to tread the party line, so to speak.

And also based on the account of The Sainted More 😀

Shakespeare was in it for the drama, after all

If the princes had been a few years older I'm sure Richard would have had them publicly executed on a trumped up charge of treason. But even in those days people would have had a hard time believing a 12 and 9 year old could be guilty of such things.

He couldn't execute them just because who they were, they still had a lot of public backing believing they were the true heirs. And again, it would have been shocking to execute children for no other reason than their birth line and would have been a big PR disaster for his rule. People would have said 'but Rich, if they're illegitimate they can't be a threat to your rule can they, so why execute them? If you have to execute them, maybe the claims they are illegitimate are not too strong then, eh?'

So it would have been easiest to get rid of them on the quiet, rather than wait for them to become fully grown men and lead an army with many many loyal supporters.

King Charles is a direct descendant of Elizabeth of York (the princes' sister)

Yes, but as I posted earlier and only found out this week, the only legitimate heirs to the UK throne now must be a descendent of Sophia of Hanover. (who knew we were a matrilineal country) And she was more Stuart wasn't she.

Oh yes, and a Protestant!

Well that's a complicated question because Lancaster and York was an argument between descendants of Edward III who had too many sons. The consequence of that was a series of over-mighty subjects and a very fragmented set of family ties including an illegitimate line which Henry was descended from.

The first Lancastrian king was Henry IV who was a usurper because he deposed Richard II.

Henry Tudor didn't even have the best claim among the surviving Lancastrians. His marriage strengthened his claim because arguably his wife had a better claim than he did. He didn't like people to dwell on that though.

The marriage was arranged between Elizabeth Wydeville and Margaret Beaufort with Henry and Elizabeth of York's consent and knowledge.

There's a really interesting book about Henry VII called Henry VII: Winter King by Thomas Penman.

Henry Tudor didn't even have the best claim among the surviving Lancastrians. His marriage strengthened his claim because arguably his wife had a better claim than he did. He didn't like people to dwell on that though.

Yes -- that's what I meant!

Ha ha! Yes the marriage made total sense and for some it was enough to mollify them.

It was still coming up in the reign of Henry VIII though which is an interesting angle in the Wolf Hall novels.