It was just a matter of time before someone started this thread....

Who did it?



Inspector Morse thinks it's Richard III....

Frost believes it was Henry VII....

Or was it someone else?

What do you guys think?

Cheeky Shiv!

The Hunchback of the North, of course.

Islanddawn wrote:

Cheeky Shiv!

The Hunchback of the North, of course.

Weren't the Percy's keeping their heads down at the time?
Oh, I see that one. Rather controversial to suggest he was a Northerner, isn't it?

I thought Richard had substantial estates in Northern England, and also held the position of Governor of the North? It was that to which I was referring to anyway.

It is rather controversial, I agree Bren. But the question could be considered controversial too, in light of previous...er....debates on the Beeb.

I've always liked the argument of a third suspect....

I'm leaning towards Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

Anyone who watched Morse or Frost would know it's never the first two suspects!

shivfan wrote:

I've always liked the argument of a third suspect....

I'm leaning towards Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

Anyone who watched Morse or Frost would know it's never the first two suspects!

He's a prime suspect all right, shivfan, but I still doubt whether the Princes were murdered at all. Buckingham certainly had a lot to gain by their deaths - or at least he thought he did.

That's the first I'm hearing that, Temperance....

What do you think they died of?

Perhaps we could have a poll of members with the options I guess of
Richard III
Henry VII
Buckingham

shivfan wrote:

That's the first I'm hearing that, Temperance....

What do you think they died of?

Apologies for not responding more promptly to your question, shivfan, but to be honest I was very wary of getting embroiled in all this again. I spent about eighteen months of what's left of my life reading up on Richard III and his times (during the great BBC discussions), and I'm honestly not so sure I'm any wiser now than I was way back in 2009! That said, it *is* an endlessly fascinating subject...

I actually agree with Minette that it is possible that no one quite knew what had become of the Princes in 1483, and that in fact they were not murdered at all. My own belief is that Buckingham was set up - by Margaret Beaufort Enterprises - to murder the Princes. She was well aware that Richard would be blamed (as indeed he was), his reputation blasted forever (as it has been) and the way cleared for Henry Tudor to attempt a coup and marry the girl who would then be the undoubted heiress to the throne, Elizabeth of York (which he did). But I think Buckingham's attempt was thwarted and that at least one of the Princes, Richard of Shrewsbury, got away - was rescued by unknown persons. Very possibly their aunt Margaret, the ruler of Burgundy, was involved (not personally of course!). Burgundy had been a place of refuge for Richard of Gloucester and his brother Edward years before.

This isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. There had been a plot (I think Mancini reports it - will have to check - Minette would know) earlier in the summer of 1483 to rescue all the York children - get them out of Sanctuary and away to Burgundy. It failed, but possibly the Burgundians tried again in the autumn. I have no evidence at all for my ideas, but then has anyone else hard evidence to offer? No one knows what really happened. My friends all quote Thomas More at me, and no one listens when I say his vesion of events should most definitely *not* be read as a factual account. More was writing political satire, not history! (More actually hated Henry VII - regarded him as a tyrant.)

As ferval has already pointed out, "In Our Time" tomorrow (Radio 4 at 9.00am) is all about Bosworth. Should be good, and perhaps will revive interest in this, our favourite topic. (Do I hear groans - surely not!)

Edit: 1483, not 1493!

I'm certainly intending to listen, although probably later on iplayer, and I look forward to hearing the reactions of those of you out there who can provide an informed commentary. Not only do I know pretty much nothing about the topic - I know, I should pay more attention - but I can be too easily swayed by an eloquent argument so I will need the best critique you can muster.

As expected, a good programme, but far too short.

I found a comment by Steven Gunn particularly interesting. He noted that in many ways Richard had been an *exemplary* (Gunn's exact word) medieval nobleman and monarch: a courageous and successful warrior, a just ruler and a pious man. What dished Richard, in Gunn's opinion, was that he was widely believed to have been the murderer of his brother's children.

Which is my point exactly.

Margaret Beaufort was, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, "the ablest politician of the fifteenth century." She certainly had an almost modern grasp of the power of propaganda and of the effectiveness of a "media" smear campaign. Having Richard labelled as a child-killer was a brilliant idea!

But no proof, just my gut feeling, and I know gut feelings are not allowed in History.

PS Over on the BBC I said I thought the whole atmosphere in London during the fevered summer of 1483 was like something out of a John Le Carre novel - agents and spies and moles everywhere. Got laughed at. Gunn this morning said that in fact (his exact words again) "there was a lot of spying going on" - at the time of the Battle of Bosworth and just before.

That's very interesting, Temperance....

I suppose we will never know for sure.

It does sound plausible that the Tudors set up Buckingham to rebel against Richard, because, after all, he did come from a family that traditionally supported the Lancastrians. The Staffords supported the Red rose, but little Henry was raised as a Yorkist - was blood thicker than water?

The only aspect of your theory I have difficulty with is the idea of one or both of them being smuggled out alive. If that had happened, I feel sure that whoever had the rightful king in his custody would certainly make a loud noise about it.

I don't think Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel were the real thing, and I'm sure you don't either....

Also, do you think those two skeletons found under the stairs could be the Princes?

Hi Shivan,

Oh hurrah, can we all get back to talking about history again?

shivfan wrote:

I suppose we will never know for sure.

Absolutely. I don't know; you don't know; nobody don't (sic) know - as one exasperated lady said to Richard Dawkins recently during a debate on whether God exists or not.

I always want to say the same during learned discussions about the fate of the Princes in the Tower. No historian - however qualified or clever - can give a "correct" answer. Where this topic is concerned, we are all surely floundering about in the realms of historical fiction - and your version of "what happened" is as good as mine!

What is so infuriating of course is that modern methods of DNA testing could (I think???) give us a definite answer about "dem bones". The bodies of the Princes' parents - Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville - lie in the vaults of St. George's Chapel, Windsor. It surely would be quite easy to determine whether or not the remains in the Urn at the Abbey are those of their sons.

The official line is that permission cannot be given for testing of the bones because it is wrong to disturb the dead. All very well and good, but I wonder if the real truth is that the thought of Jeremy Kyle type DNA testing actually sends shudders down the backbones of all the members of the English and Scottish aristocracy - inheritance issues and all that? Not so much a matter of urns of bones as of innumerable cans of worms just waiting to be opened!

I agree with you about Lambert Simnel, but I'm honestly not sure what I think about Perkin Warbeck. He is the real mystery. Margaret of Burgundy always supported him of course. Could it be that, whatever had been *planned* by various factions in 1483, no one was actually certain as to what had really become of the boys, but that several people - including both Henry VII *and* Margaret of Burgundy - believed one of the lads had got away?

Back in a bit about PW - Elizabeth of York's reaction to him - and her treatment of his widow, Katherine Gordon - is very interesting.

shivfan wrote:

Also, do you think those two skeletons found under the stairs could be the Princes?

You may be interested in reading this Shiv (from post 40), where Nordmann raises some interesting and pragmatic points concerning those skeletons.

Temperance wrote:

What is so infuriating of course is that modern methods of DNA testing could (I think???) give us a definite answer about "dem bones". The bodies of the Princes' parents - Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville - lie in the vaults of St. George's Chapel, Windsor. It surely would be quite easy to determine whether or not the remains in the Urn at the Abbey are those of their sons.

The official line is that permission cannot be given for testing of the bones because it is wrong to disturb the dead. All very well and good, but I wonder if the real truth is that the thought of Jeremy Kyle type DNA testing actually sends shudders down the backbones of all the members of the English and Scottish aristocracy - inheritance issues and all that? Not so much a matter of urns of bones as of innumerable cans of worms just waiting to be opened!

Yes, I do find it disturbing that the English royal family is able to be protected from such 'disturbances', while the rest of us commoners don't have such protection from 'disturbances'. If these skeletons were commoners, we would probably hear a different story....

It's this class structure, which still rears its ugly head every now and then, such as in this case, that leaves me with a very ambivalent feeling towards the monarchy. But that's another story....

Sorry, ID, I can't read that, since I'm not a member of english history. I guess I should sign up...it's just that I haven't got around to it, since I'm already a member here!

Sorry Shiv, I didn't think of that. I wonder if I can copy and paste Nordmann's comments here instead? Mmm

"Two children buried under the foundation of a stone stairs built just over two hundred years before the brats in question were "disappeared"? Someone else's, obviously. You're right to "do wonder in if" about it.
Of course, that would have been the era of The Long Shanks/The Montfort/The Bruce Brothers and a whole litany of other potential child murderers. Take your pick"

And followed by this one

"Ok, some corrections are due here:

No urn, it was described in the 17th century as a box.

The "velvet" was reported at that time. This was cited as "proof" that the remains were royal. Though this "proof" was cited in the context of Charles II attempting to establish a reputation as a "merry" monarch and protector of English heritage on behalf of his "loyal" subjects (unlike what those darned, distinctly "un-merry" Parliamentarians had envisaged as the way forward), and who then duly reinterred them in Westminster amidst great pomp and ceremony on that basis. Go figure.

The 1930s examination concluded in fact that one set of remains at least was the wrong age (and ,we now know, the wrong sex) to be either of the princes.

If you visit the British Museum prints collection you will find next to the Northcote acquisition from two years ago a more modern analysis of the evidence by Dr Christine Fowler. The box, based on the 1930s data, would now be assumed to have contained remnants from at least four skeletal remains, maybe more. The practise in the 13th century was to reinter human remains found when digging foundations for important structures under the entrance (where these were found). The chances that these remains were interred at a later point under a two hundred ton superstructure are minimal given the manpower, tunneling expertise and time required to execute such a project, not to mention the expense. That such a project would be concluded with a highly professional hiding of any evidence of such a tunnel would simply push such speculation beyond the realms of common sense, not to mention fact.

At this point in time therefore the best explanation is that these remains were from earlier than the late 13th century, though how much earlier has yet to be determined. They are not "two boys" but a mixture of several human remains from early childhood to adulthood. Their importance historically now is therefore what they tell us about an altogether different Turd entirely in an altogether different era - Charles II, not Dastardly Dick."

Edit. Yay, it worked.

Note on the Urn - the remains ended up in such a receptacle for their burial in Westminster Abbey. Odd choice of container for such a ceremony, but there you go - perhaps they had an particularly hideous urn they wanted to get rid of.

Extracting DNA from bone is not as simple as one might presume. In the absence of tissue or of tissue remains the only effective source remaining is to be found in the osteocyte cells of which bone is primarily composed, and especially in those which once combined with collagen fibres - that is, where tendons and the like once attached themselves to the bone.

Osteocytes have a half life of 25 years. This means that 700 year old bones might optimistically yield less than 0.001% of DNA-testable material compared to their yield at time of death. This does not preclude a testable yield but it does greatly increase the likelihood that one is left having to test quite a lot of samples from the same source, not to compare results but simply to extract enough intact fragments of DNA to compose a coherent signature.

And that's the problem in the case of the bones re-interred under the assumption that they might have been those of the princes in the tower. Since their initial interring they have been subject to several contaminatory treatments, all of which are almost impossible to eliminate as contaminents due to our ignorance - both of how and exactly in what organic milieu they had at first been deposited, and then in the intervening 350 years to what treatments with regard to human handling they have been subjected. Any or all of these factors can have left trace DNA, some of it human, on the specimens which are not actually of the specimens themselves.

Ironically we have a better chance of extracting "clean" DNA signatures from bones which have been fossilised since that process eliminates naturally much of the contamination, and makes it easier in any case to distinguish between "real" and contaminant in any case. However, and despite the obvious enthusiasm and interest for the subject as evidenced by all these discussion threads, I doubt if whatever might be left of humanity in a few million years time will really give a toss by that stage.

Though I'm beginning to have doubts about that too ...

Mmm, I always thought teeth were the best source of DNA in skeletons? Again providing there has been no contamination from ground seepages etc?

But you are correct Nordmann, it is not as easy a process as it sounds plus extracting DNA is an expensive and lengthy undertaking also.

Many thanks for the info. There is obviously much ignorance about DNA testing - I for one thought that any old bone (or tooth) would do. Clearly not.

Islanddawn wrote:

Mmm, I always thought teeth were the best source of DNA in skeletons? Again providing there has been no contamination from ground seepages etc?

But you are correct Nordmann, it is not as easy a process as it sounds plus extracting DNA is an expensive and lengthy undertaking also.

Teeth yield much more valuable information through isotopic analysis of the enamel content. If conducted however on the Westminster specimens it would hardly yield useful information since its value rests in indicating place of birth and diet of representatives of stable populations. Whatever the results might show they could therefore never be used to prove that the remains belong to two young, aristocratic and peripatetic members of society.

Has anyone considered that these "bones" may simply represent how fraudulent regal aristocracy is as a source of information, period? The real contaminant here is not organic or chemical but very much informational. It is never in the interests of a ruling elite to tell the factual truth, giving rise to the probability that the "princes in the tower" is a case of fraud perpetuated upon fraud, right up to the present day, since the entire saga now has been invested with significance far beyond the actual fate of the subjects involved but - thanks to Charles II - one which strikes right at the heart of monarchy itself. To "disprove" the royal claim that these were the boys puts the monarchy in the same position as the papacy in the matter of the Turin Shroud and other fraudulence hitherto supported and protected by that particular power structure.

It is a question of damage limitation with regard to fragile credibility, and in the case of the British royal family such credibility is, at this moment, extremely fragile indeed. Expect no further encouragement to "disprove" or in any way discredit monarchs from the time of the restoration onwards coming from "official" origins, at least not for the foreseeable future. Alteration of myths and legends associated with the monarchical tradition is equally discouraged, I imagine.

Which of course is all the more reason why, come the onset of the republic, all such claims should be at last examined forensically and the historical record edited accordingly. But don't hold your breath.

Come to think of it - a calcitriolic analysis of these bones might yield some valuable information indeed. If it showed a sudden depletion (or increase) of either calcium or phosphate in their deposition occurring at the same time this could indicate imprisonment, or at least a drastic change of lifestyle concurrent with long-term incarceration.

Dragging the topic off in another direction I’m afraid, but the monarchy has been rather crafty over the past couple of hundred years at least by shifting the ideology of their right to rule away from genealogical succession to a less tangible and less falsifiable premise, that of custodianship.
In much the same way as the Scottish landowning classes have justified their continued position with regard to land reform by presenting themselves as the natural stewards of the traditions and community as well as the natural environment, the monarchy has managed to resituate itself as the embodiment of an historical continuity and stability which preserves various essences of national identity.
The accuracy or otherwise of claimed succession, while of huge interest to historians, might be, to the wider audience, a minor motor of dissatisfaction with the status quo, but while the monarchy, like the landowners, can still tap into the reservoir of sentiment and nostalgia and promote its continued existence as being the repository of some fundamental national ethos and values, you are right to suggest that the republic is still some way off.

I agree, ferval. "The princes in the tower" is actually a very good case in point in this regard, not just in itself but as a typical feature of what passes for popular historical analysis of monarchy in Britain. One only has to look at the trend in this area in recent years - both in terms of serious historical study and popular drama based on this - to see that a major "cut off" point rests slap bang at the point of the Stuart succession. Analysis of the next 50 years or so tends to be in the context of another period equally prone to cliche, the "Civil War", and at the point of the restoration we see cliche overtake fact in popular historical analysis to the point that we can gleefully dissect the motives and actions of pre-Tudor usurpation of the reins of power without any inhibition save that of access to accurate data but an equally enthusiastic and detailed analysis of, say, Hanoverian management of its imperial function, is noticeably absent in the popular view. "Sexy" history ends with the Tudors - now presented to us as a soap opera, just to prove the point - whereas more recent history which increasingly bears a significance in terms of modern monarchy is ignored in populist treatment (madness of one incumbent excepted). This leads to some strange populist assumptions (such as Edward VIII being primarily a "love story") which in themselves should raise serious questions regarding how this information is being managed before it is presented to us at all. What should be a direct challenge to apply considerable attention is ignored, and deemed less relevant or interesting, quite amazingly, than the machinations of defunct power elites from a period in history which has been officially compartmentalised long ago.

The implication is less of a conspiracy in the sense of intention to deceive by a small current cabal but of endemic falsification of data throughout the lifetime of the institution of which the current cabal is representative. Proper historical analysis of any period should be cogniscant of this tendency and therefore be at liberty to draw parallel between modern data and older data in order to better understand either. It is the absence of such modern data and the general tendency to regard it as "boring" or even irrelevant which, to me, is the most sinister feature and the one which historians should be most urgently addressing.

If discussion about the attempted elimination of a threat to the usurper of the reins of power at the time of the demise of Yorkist tenure leads to a better understanding of current or recent activity in the same circles then I am all for it, though I doubt it ever will - or be allowed to in popular understanding. Until then it is a subject as relevant in historical terms to the institution of monarchy as an Agatha Christie mystery might be deemed to be. Interesting in terms of shedding light on the protagonists' motives and characters but a dead-end in terms of further application of data.

Moving beyond who was responsible for the death of the princes, what i find interesting is the way that the House of York managed to lose power when at one point during Edward IV's reign there were 6 male heirs to Edward IV all with a far better claim to the throne than Henry VII.

It is interesting how history would view Richard of Gloucester if Edward IV had not lived quite so excessively and survived 2 or 3 years longer.

Tim

nordmann wrote:

The implication is less of a conspiracy in the intention to deceive by a small current cabal but of endemic falsification of data throughout the lifetime of the institution of which the current cabal is representative.

And isn't that exactly what was of deep concern to Thomas More when he wrote his "The History of Richard III"? The text can actually be read as a satirical commentary on *historians*, especially those like Polydore Vergil whose work, "Anglica historia", commissioned by Henry VII around 1506-07, effectively created the "Tudor myth". More very possibly thought that Vergil, an old friend, once greatly respected by himself and Erasmus, had actually sold out to the establishment.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Moving beyond who was responsible for the death of the princes, what i find interesting is the way that the House of York managed to lose power when at one point during Edward IV's reign there were 6 male heirs to Edward IV all with a far better claim to the throne than Henry VII.

Weren't there actually more than six, if you count the sons of Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk (the sister of Edward IV and Richard III)? This lady produced a fine brood of children, including several sons. In 1477 there were actually *eleven* legitimate male Plantagenet heirs:

Edward, Prince of Wales

Richard of Shrewsbury

George, Duke of Clarence

Edward Plantagenet (later Earl of Warwick)

Richard of Gloucester

Edward of Middleham (later Prince of Wales)

John de la Pole

Edward de la Pole

Edmund de la Pole

Humphrey de la Pole

William de la Pole

Clarence dropped out in 1478 (executed), but the Duchess of Suffolk produced another boy, Richard de la Pole, in 1480.

*Eleven* heirs, yet the Plantagenets somehow *still* managed to lose out to the Tudors! Looks suspiciously like carelessness rather than misfortune.

I was just counting the sons of Richard duke and their sons, my point was 6 seemed heirs should have seemed more than enough. The earl of Lincoln, John de la Pole was clearly insufficiently certain of the superiority of his own claim over Henry Tudor to claim the throne in his own right. I would presume that the same would apply to the other de la Poles.

Tim

Tim of Aclea wrote:

I was just counting the sons of Richard duke and their sons, my point was 6 seemed heirs should have seemed more than enough. The earl of Lincoln, John de la Pole was clearly insufficiently certain of the superiority of his own claim over Henry Tudor to claim the throne in his own right. I would presume that the same would apply to the other de la Poles.

Tim

John de la Pole had been designated as Richard III's heir after the death of Edward of Middleham. Henry Tudor did his best to win him over, but in vain: de la Pole rebelled against H7 and died in 1487 at the Battle of Stoke - fighting *ostensibly* to support Lambert Simnel. The de la Poles were a constant threat to the Tudor regime: Edmund was executed by Henry VIII in 1513, and Richard would have gone the same way had H8 been able to get his hands on him. Richard de la Pole actually spent years annoying the hell out of Henry VIII. Usually called the White Rose, he wandered around Europe cursing the Tudors to anyone who would listen. He died fighting for the French at the Battle of Pavia in 1525.

The fate of William de la Pole is rather mysterious - he ended up in the Tower and never came out - he is said to have died there (of natural causes) around 1539.

Of course the other serious Plantagenet claimants were the confusingly named *Poles* (quite different family - nothing to do with the de la Poles). By around 1500 Margaret Pole, nee Plantagenet, daughter of the Duke of Clarence, later the Countess of Salisbury, had produced four sons, all of whom were a potential threat to the Tudors. Henry VIII, like his father with John de la Pole, did his best to win the Poles over. But after the Pilgrimage of Grace - the most serious threat ever to the Tudor regime - H8 turned on the entire family. Destroyed the lot of them, either physically or - in the case of the wretched Geoffrey - mentally. Only Reginald Pole was beyond Henry's reach: RP remained safe on the continent (Henry did try to get him assassinated, as in "The Tudors" ).

Interestingly, Margaret Pole and Catherine of Aragon were great friends - it seems that they had hoped for a marriage between their children, Reginald and Mary - could have been another union of Tudor and Plantagenet blood. (But Pole was never the marrying type - he actually ended up as Mary Tudor's Cardinal Archbishop, not her King Consort.)

Edit 1: Just checked up on William de la Pole. Poor chap. He was put in the Tower by Henry VII in 1501 for plotting with brothers Edmund and Richard. They escaped to the Continent (Edmund came back - big mistake - see above). William was a prisoner in the Tower for 37/38 years - he never came out. Apparently he holds the record for the longest time anyone spent locked up there.

Edit 2: Done a spot more checking. Richard de la Pole was actually recognised by the French in 1513 as Richard IV! Obviously an excellent way to get Henry VIII foaming at the mouth. Even worse - in 1522 Francis I, who was having one of his periodic huffs with his "dear brother Henry", actively encouraged Richard de la Pole - or Richard IV - to attempt an invasion of England!

For anyone interested, you can read Polydore Vergil's account of the reign of Richard III here:

http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/25eng.html

It is everso slightly biased against Richard - actually makes for very entertaining reading. Some lovely emotive expressions, such as Richard "snatching the boy from his mother's bosom", his being "afire with lust for gaining the crown" and how he had "a pinched and truculent face which seemed to smack of deceit and guile." Lord knows, but that man was a monster!

Richard *was* responsible for the death of the Princes by the way - Vergil gives *all* the details of the "horrid instructions".

I spent last night rereading More's account - and I actually found myself laughing out loud at parts of it. I am convinced it was written as a send-up of Vergil's version - as Peter Ackroyd points out "there are coincidences of phrasing which suggest echoes or borrowings from Polydore Vergil". Ackroyd also points out that "More's work is too badly structured to meet the requirements of serious historical narrative...It is also replete with errors and omisssions."

But that was possibly the whole point - More's "History" (or how not to write history) was never published*, but was written for the private amusement of his friends. The very opening sentence with its egregious error sets the tone of the whole work: "King Edward, of that name the Fourth, after that he had lived fifty and three years, seven months, and six days, died..." (Edward was just short of his forty-first birthday when he died.) And the giving of servants' gossip as evidence ( a servant tells More what another servant had told him!), followed immediately by "But now to return to the course of this history..." - are we really meant to take such stuff seriously? Surely not! And everywhere are phrases like "as men constantly say", "as the fame (rumour) runneth", "as wise men say", plus the laughing warning: "But of all this point is there no certainty; and whoso divineth upon conjectures may as well shoot too far as too short. Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned..." ( "credible information" here being the servants' gossip!)

* PS Vergil's History wasn't printed or published until the reign of Henry VIII, but it would have been read in manuscript form by the members of the intellectual circle to which More and his friends belonged. (Both More and Vergil were members of the Doctors' Commons.) I honestly think it caused much hilarity - and not a little concern as to historical truth. More after all was greatly influenced by Cicero who insisted that, although historical writing should be eloquent and entertaining, it should also be concerned with the truth - "...who does not know history's first law to be that an author must not dare to tell anything but the truth? And its second that he must make bold to tell the whole truth?"

An alternative theory ...

And this brilliant programme from 1984, the 500th anniversary of the disappearing prince trick ...

The introduction ...



The Prosecution and The Defence (followed by The Verdict)



Watch out for a young David Starkey appearing as witness for the prosecution.

Thank you, thank you, I'm at part 9, and thoroughly enjoying it. And they say that things haven't been dumbed down.

Damn, I can't find part 10!
Found it!

Were that a real murder trial, Richard would now be in the pub, raising a glass in gratitude to Starkey for so effectively antagonising the jury to the prosecution by his insufferable rudeness and condescension. He reminded me irresistibly of someone we know - where is these days anyway?

Can you believe that there was a time when 4 hours of a Saturday evening was devoted to this by a commercial television company?
Happy, far off days.

That Lady Wedgewood (The Defence 12) looks just like Jenna Whittingham, one of the candidates in The Apprentice 2012. But Lady W. is everso posh and Jenna runs a beauty salon somewhere near Bolton, so I don't suppose they are related.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/13/1331633221501/The-Apprentice---2012-Jen-014.jpg

She doesn't sound like her though!

I haven't finished watching this yet but I'm somewhat surprised by the line the defence is taking so far. Can't wait to see the remaining part.

ferval wrote:

She doesn't sound like her though!

No. And I can't imagine Lady Wedgewood being so daft as to try to flog pasta and meatballs for £7.99 up the Gordie Rd.

But sorry, I seem to have strayed off-topic yet again.

The trial is good, isn't it? All that fear of the Oxbridge lot from the red-brickers - the chap from Lancaster (?) looked absolutely terrified of the superb Mr Richard Dillon Du Cann. And Starkey, the grammar school lad made good, seething with hatred for everyone.

Potter is the star of the show.

But I'll shut up now for fear of spoiling it for people.

Yes, the cast of characters in the courtroom has resonance with the history - the cultured south and the uncouth north. And Staekey, not just hatred but insecurity as well. How sad to have to try to compensate for a perceived lack of 'pedigee', social and educational, by such embarrassing behaviour, has he never observed that old money has beautiful manners - or does he despise that?
I wonder if the Dr Tony Pollard there is the father of Tony Pollard the battlefield guy, I guess he must be, Tony's a Macclesfield boy, I think.

Wonderful! It's so depressing when you compare it to today's offerings, I dread to think how it would be done, CSI Tower I expect.
Maddening though that better techniques can't be addressed to the evidence, not just the bones themselves (Free the Tower 2!) but the stratigraphy of their deposition site. It might have been possible to use medieval siege tunnelling technology to get them under that staircase but we'll never know.
As a whole the programme underlined a couple of off topic things for me though. It was said several times that the case revolved around 'speculation and hearsay', but is that not true of all historical endeavour?
The other was, the Scottish verdict of 'Not Proven' comes in for a lot of stick but wouldn't it be so much more accurate to have two verdicts, namely Proven and Not Proven because that's what our system is geared to produce.
Huge thanks for posting that, I don't recall it at all but in 1984, on a Saturday night, I was probably out enjoying myself.

The bones would carry much less weight in a similar exercise today as they've been more or less rubbished on the basis of their provenance and the 1930s "findings" by everyone in the meantime. In 1984 the 1930s claim had only been really gainsaid by one guy. He's mentioned in the case but I can't remember his name.

Also the emphasis on Buckingham might not be the favourite tack of the defence these days either. In as far as it was used to indicate that others had just as much motive and opportunity (if not more) than Richard himself it was a good ploy, but nowadays the same spotlight might fall on several others too for similar effect.

My own theory that the two lads woke up one night to find about two dozen of England's finest hovering over them with knives in hand is still the one I stick with (and the cute little mites probably stabbed each other too). If "guilt by association" could be a reasonable verdict then half of the so-called aristocracy of the day would have been churning out car registration plates in the state pen.

nordmann wrote:

The bones would carry much less weight in a similar exercise today as they've been more or less rubbished on the basis of their provenance and the 1930s "findings" by everyone in the meantime. In 1984 the 1930s claim had only been really gainsaid by one guy. He's mentioned in the case but I can't remember his name.

I think it was E.W. Bradford, Professsor of Dental Surgery at the University of Bristol. Dillon Du Cann quotes Bradford's comment that "not very much credence can be attached to the evidence of consanguinity."

Ironically DDC probably got this from Charles Ross's biography of Richard III published in 1981. In Appendix One, "On the Bones of 1674", Ross, definitely no friend of Richard of Gloucester, says that he is "indebted to three experts in the University of Bristol for allowing me to quote their judgements": Dr. Juliet Rogers, Dr. J. H. Musgrove and Professor E. W. Bradford. The three however don't agree, and their judgements are, as Ross admits, "inconclusive".

I'll say. The trouble is one's head spins after reading/hearing all the medical evidence - that quoted by Ross and all the stuff published since - all based of course not on the actual contents of The Urn, but on the reports and photographs produced by Wright and Tanner in 1934, and by Dr. George Northcroft, a former President of the British Dental Association who conducted a concurrent dental examination. So many experts, so many differing opinions. As well as Rogers, Musgrove and Bradford, there's Hammond and White's "The Sons of Edward IV: A Re-examination of the Evidence on their Deaths and on the Bones in Westminster Abbey" (1986); there's Dr. Richard Lyne-Pirkis; there's John Ashdown-Hill's article (1998) with the great title of "The Missing Molars: A Genealogical Connundrum"; there's Theya Mollesen from the British Museum, and of course, there's that nice Dr. Jean Ross from the Trial programme. She, at the time the Senior Lecturer in Anatomy at Charing Cross Hospital, was very convincing. What on earth is the layman to make of it all?

Let's take Dr. Jean Ross's evidence for instance - her observations about the wormian bones observed in both skulls, plus the "anomalies" in the dentition of the Urn skulls and in that of the skull of Anne Mowbray - were Dr. Ross's conclusions correct? According to Hammond and White, large wormian bones, a feature Wright and Tanner (and Jean Ross) considered evidence that the skeletons were related, "have been found in approximately fifty percent of skeletons from the Middle Ages". Is this true? Moreover, the skull of Anne Mowbray, who was definitely related to the Princes, did *not* have the kind of wormian bones treated by Wright and Tanner as indicative of consanguinity. Confused? I know I am!

Then the teeth. Dr. Ross seemed very sure about the missing teeth "anomalies". Yet I read this in Bertram Fields's (he's a lawyer, though, not a historian or a doctor) "Royal Blood: King Richard and the Mystery of the Princes":

"Common missing teeth, another factor given weight by Wright and Tanner, is also an unreliable factor, in that a substantial number of missing teeth was a common feature of skeletons from the Middle Ages and, in any event, could often have been the result of teeth being knocked out or lost to infection, rather than the consequence of a congenital tendency."

PS David Starkey said Thomas More was a proper historian and that little minds should not presume to dismiss his History of Richard III as a joke. Fair enough, but why then does nobody take any notice of what poor old Minette has been saying for years - More tells us that the Princes' final resting place was *not* ten foot under a Tower staircase! The murdering villains sent by Richard did put the bodies under the stairway, but then, having been told where his nephews' little corpses had been so hastily and unceremoniously stashed, Richard understandably felt a bit bad about the whole business: he promptly ordered that they should be dug up at once and moved somewhere more more suitable. Here's the relevant passage:

"Which after the wretches were perceived - first by the struggling with the pains of death and, after long lying still - to be thoroughly dead, they laid their bodies naked* out upon the bed and fetched Sir James to see them. Which, upon the sight of them, caused those murderers to bury them at the stair-foot, meetly deep in the ground, under a great heap of stones.

Then rode Sir James in great haste to King Richard and showed him all manner of the murder; who gave him great thanks and, as some say, there made him a knight. But he allowed not, as I have heard, that burying in so vile a corner, saying that he would have them buried in a better place because they were a king's sons. Lo, an honourable courage (nature) of a king! Whereupon, they say that a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and secretly interred them in such place as, by the occasion of his death which only knew it, could never since come to light..."

Mind you, we get the usual "as some say" and "as I have heard".

And the bodies were naked? No velvet then?

PPS If you buy the famous Larry Oliver version of Shakespeare's Richard III off Amazon, you get a free bonus disc of the whole of the Trial programme - a real bargain!

Apologies for adding more to above, but I've dug out this from Bertram Fields's excellent book. After all that's been said and written and debated where are we now? This is what Fields thinks (1998):

"Based on the data now available, what can we rationally conclude about the bones examined in 1933* by Tanner and Wright?

First, they are probably the same bones (minus some) that were found ten feet deep under a Tower staircase in 1674.

Second, they may or may not be the two princes and may or may not even be male. Only further testing will tell us.

Third, Tanner and Wright are incorrect in the certainty with which they conclude that the older child was not thirteen. That age may be probable; but it may also be that the older child was less than twelve, in which case it could not be Prince Edward, or more than fourteen, in which case, even if it were Prince Edward, he could have died in 1485 or later.

If, on the other hand these *are* the remains of the two princes, and the older child was not yet thirteen, they died in 1483, not 1485. If so, Richard's alibi would be gone. His guilt would still not be established, since others could have committed the crime in that year. Still, the probability of his guilt would certainly be increased."

Someday, of course, permission will be given for a proper examination of the bones, and by then perhaps the technology will be sufficient not only to tell us if these really were the two princes, but also to determine with precision whether the death occured in 1483 or later.

Meanwhile, we continue to go round and round...

PS Their report was published in 1934.

PPS I like the quotation from Sir Horace Walpole (1768) which Fields puts at the beginning of his book:

"So incompetent has the generality of historians been for the province they have undertaken, that it is almost a question, whether, if the dead of past ages could revive, they would be able to reconnoitre the events of their own times, as transmitted to us by ignorance and misrepresentation".

PPS Really will shut up now.

Please don't!

nordmann wrote:

The bones would carry much less weight in a similar exercise today as they've been more or less rubbished on the basis of their provenance and the 1930s "findings" by everyone in the meantime.

And yet here is the popular and widely read Alison Weir holding forth on the subject. The final paragraph of her 1992 book (re-issued in 1997), "The Princes in the Tower" ("absorbing" Sunday Times), tells us:

"The weight of medical evidence may not be conclusive, but it in no way excludes the likelihood that these bones were those of the ill-fated Princes in the Tower; indeed it corroborates Sir Thomas More's evidence and the findings of Wright and Tanner, and in its own right strongly suggests that the original identification of the bones in the seventeenth century was correct...It is true that the medical evidence presently available does not identify the cause of death of the children, nor their murderer. Nevertheless, it confirms that, if these were the Princes - *and there is no reason to suppose otherwise* - then they were dead by the end of 1483. And if that is the case...then only one man could have been responsible for their deaths: Richard III."

So there we have it. Alison has pronounced and we all really can go home now.

That's amazing. Horrible Histories came to exactly the same conclusion! I agree, the weight of academic opinion would appear to be united on this one.

Yes, although Sellar and Yeatman - disappointingly - have little to say on the subject of the Princes or The Bones. The opening sentence of their otherwise penetrating Chapter XXIX, "Causes of the Tudors", merely notes that "During the War of the Roses the Kings became less and less memorable (sometimes even getting in the wrong order) until at last one of them was nothing but some princes smothered in the Tower..."

But their Q5. on Test Paper III offers the thoughtful student an opportunity for further comment:

5. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a Throne."

(a) Suggest remedies, or

(b) Imitate the action of a Tiger.

To be serious again, and to return to Charles II, this is an interesting article; I think it is all about what Nordmann was suggesting earlier. Maurer suggests that "the inurnment was a political act, fraught with a political message for Charles's own time". This surely is terribly important, yet it's something that is never really discussed.

http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdf

She also says that "Sir Thomas More, who genuinely enjoyed a good joke and who thumbed his nose at human gullibility, would have appreciated the ironies of the situation. Whatever else they may be, the bones in the urn seem a fitting tribute to his own singular sense of humour."

I've never read Ms Weir but if the quote above is representative, I wouldn't bother. Her conclusions are risible. An equally, or even more defensible, explanation could be that, at some earlier stage in the construction of the building, a number of bones were found which could have been deposited or redeposited there at an unknown time in the past. According to earlier medieval custom these were then gathered up and reburied. We have no idea if these bones were found in any stratigraphic relationship to each other, distributed or in any discrete deposit, articulated, in a pit or a grave cut or whether anything else was found with them. And that's not even to start thinking about the quality of the osteological examinations nor the agenda driven nature of these.
At our present stage of knowledge, all that can definitively be stated is that whoever these bones belonged to, they were dead by the time of the rebuilding of the staircase.
edit - I wrote the above about 90 mins ago but someone came in so I've only just seen your latest post. I'll read that now.

ferval wrote:

I've never read Ms Weir but if the quote above is representative, I wouldn't bother. Her conclusions are risible.

Risible's the word. I'm beginning to understand now why Minette got so cross whenever Alison Weir's name cropped up!

I wonder what - as an archaeologist - you make of the Helen Maurer article, ferval?