Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 13th, 2012, 12:40 AM   #31

Halomanuk2's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Flitwick,Bedfordshire,UK
Posts: 221

The fact is we can speculate all we want on this but at the end of the day unless the skeletons that were found are given Royal approval to be investigated then Richard will always be tarnished as the man who gave the order for the boys to be murdered.
Halomanuk2 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 13th, 2012, 02:01 AM   #32
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 273

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halomanuk2 View Post
The fact is we can speculate all we want on this but at the end of the day unless the skeletons that were found are given Royal approval to be investigated then Richard will always be tarnished as the man who gave the order for the boys to be murdered.
Richard will aways get the blame because he was in charge when they dispeared, and he was one of those with most to gain by the two Princes falling under an Oxen cart.

others were also in a position to gain - Henry Tudor, Buckingham, Lincoln et al - none of whom, were the Princes still alive, would even have been mentioned as possible future monarchs let alone considered serious contenders. but the grim truth for those of us sympathetic to Richard is that it was he who was responsible for their safety, both as King and uncle, and that he had a history of, err... 'decisive action' against those he percieved to be a real threat to him, and as shown by the death of Hastings, Grey, Lord Rivers etc.. he wasn't that fussy about waiting for the law to take its course.
Dried Fruit is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 02:05 AM   #33

Halomanuk2's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Flitwick,Bedfordshire,UK
Posts: 221

Thats right,and sensible logic would suggest Richard,simply because of his 'decisive' action..although it is damn frustrating not to know what happened truthfully and at least confirmation that the skeletons found were the Princes would be something at least,but alas for now thats not to be.
Halomanuk2 is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 04:05 AM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Bow to your knowledge on this subject Crystal. I can only tell you that Alonso de Palencia, in his classic (and superb) account of the War of Granada wrote a chapter for each year - should have been 1482 to 92 but unfortunately he died before the war end! In each chapter he inserts a passage about contemporary events around European courts, and in 1483 he writes that the princes were mudered by Richard. I have no opinion on this my point is that Tudor propoganda was powerful and instant!
Without patronising anyone; C R is pretty good :-) And has the courage of her convictions to go with her commitment and research. There are writers around that period accusing Richard, Domenico Mancini, de Rochefort the Chancellor of France, and Philippe de Commyngs. But that's all they are; writers. And as has been said, if Richard didn't do the deed he was at least their Protector and in a period of violence and vigilantism. Henry VII had plenty of reason to be silent over the episode.
John Paul is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:22 PM   #35

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,986
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halomanuk2 View Post
The fact is we can speculate all we want on this but at the end of the day unless the skeletons that were found are given Royal approval to be investigated then Richard will always be tarnished as the man who gave the order for the boys to be murdered.
Do you mean the ones that workman had found under the stairs in the tower of London during King Charles II reign. I can't see Betty allowing that to happen or give any proper reason to allow the investigation to be carried out. I have heard that they were animal bones, I suppose it was someones idea of a practical joke back then. There is a link on the previous page that John Paul has posted about those bones that they had found in 1674.

Last edited by Crystal Rainbow; December 13th, 2012 at 01:44 PM.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #36

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,986
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Bow to your knowledge on this subject Crystal. I can only tell you that Alonso de Palencia, in his classic (and superb) account of the War of Granada wrote a chapter for each year - should have been 1482 to 92 but unfortunately he died before the war end! In each chapter he inserts a passage about contemporary events around European courts, and in 1483 he writes that the princes were mudered by Richard. I have no opinion on this my point is that Tudor propoganda was powerful and instant!
I hope I don't come across as a know it all. I have seem some European accounts that Margaret Beaufort had some powerful people doing PR on Henry Tudor's behalf.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:31 PM   #37

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,369

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
Do you mean the ones that workman had found under the stairs in the tower of London during King Charles II reign. I can't see Betty allowing that to happen or give any proper reason to allow the investigation to be carried out. I have heard that they were animal bones, I suppose it was someones idea of a practical joke back then.
Animal bones.. where did you hear that? I thought that somebody examined them some time in the 1930s and decided that they were definitely the bones of children. Also that one of the skeletons showed signs of disease that correlated to an illness suffered by one of the Princes. Can't recall the details off the top of my head sorry.

I still don't understand why there's no further research been allowed on the bones, especially as there seemed to be no hesistation at all in allowing DNA research of Richard III's possible remians.
Sicknero is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:39 PM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Animal bones.. where did you hear that? I thought that somebody examined them some time in the 1930s and decided that they were definitely the bones of children. Also that one of the skeletons showed signs of disease that correlated to an illness suffered by one of the Princes. Can't recall the details off the top of my head sorry.

I still don't understand why there's no further research been allowed on the bones, especially as there seemed to be no hesistation at all in allowing DNA research of Richard III's possible remians.
1933 Sicknero ;-) To re-open the Urn at Westminster's Royal Peculiar would need the Monarch's nod. Yes, there is a question why when the Leicester bones are being tested, why not those bones again and what's in the Crypt next to Edward IV and Elizabeth?

And the Abbey bones may have been mixed up with detritus by workmen when they were found in 1674, then discarded as rubbish, then collected again for burial.

I still suspect the Princes weren't stuffed under the stairs and that they had a more dignified resting place.

However, if you look at the reports for those remains in Westminster, they offer a lot to say they are the princes' remains. Injuries and anomalies that support suffocation, though they wouldn't identify any murderer. One John Knight, Chief Surgeon to Charles II, published a report of the first discovery in 1677:-

"Upon Friday the ... day of July, An. 1674 ...in order to the rebuilding of the several Offices in the Tower, and to clear the White Tower of all contiguous buildings, digging down the stairs which led from the King's Lodgings, to the chapel in the said Tower, about ten foot in the ground were found the bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest, which upon the survey were found proportionable to ages of those two brothers viz. about thirteen and eleven years. The skull of one bring entire, the other broken, as were indeed many of the other bones, also the chest, by the violence of the labourers, who....cast the rubbish and them away together, wherefore they were caused to sift the rubbish and by that means preserved all the bones. The circumstances of the story being considered and the same often discoursed with Sir Thomas Chichley, Master of the Ordinance, by whose industry the new buildings were then in carrying on, and by whom the matter was reported to the King.'' The Richard III Society
John Paul is offline  
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:07 AM   #39

Halomanuk2's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Flitwick,Bedfordshire,UK
Posts: 221

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
Do you mean the ones that workman had found under the stairs in the tower of London during King Charles II reign. I can't see Betty allowing that to happen or give any proper reason to allow the investigation to be carried out. I have heard that they were animal bones, I suppose it was someones idea of a practical joke back then. There is a link on the previous page that John Paul has posted about those bones that they had found in 1674.
No i dont think they were Crystal...there were even clothing fragments found attached to the bones IIRC.
It would at least clear up the fact that the Princes were murdered in the tower and buried there,which i think is important.
Halomanuk2 is offline  
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:10 AM   #40

Halomanuk2's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Flitwick,Bedfordshire,UK
Posts: 221

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Animal bones.. where did you hear that? I thought that somebody examined them some time in the 1930s and decided that they were definitely the bones of children. Also that one of the skeletons showed signs of disease that correlated to an illness suffered by one of the Princes. Can't recall the details off the top of my head sorry.

I still don't understand why there's no further research been allowed on the bones, especially as there seemed to be no hesistation at all in allowing DNA research of Richard III's possible remians.
Totally agree with all the points here,thats what i heard.
Halomanuk2 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
princes, tower


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princes in the Tower Tudor chick Medieval and Byzantine History 78 November 21st, 2013 03:48 PM
Who killed the Princes in the Tower? Bismarck European History 90 March 15th, 2013 05:06 PM
The Tower of London popstar21 General History 18 September 8th, 2011 03:11 AM
What happened to the princes in the tower Crystal Rainbow Medieval and Byzantine History 124 August 11th, 2011 08:20 AM
Princes in the Tower Crystal Rainbow Medieval and Byzantine History 40 March 15th, 2011 08:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.