User Name  Password
Remove ads
Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Chat Room | Help | Shop | Sign In | | | | | Follow Aimoo_Com on Twitter
Title: Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
Hop to: 
Views:4989     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
AuthorComment
Forever_Amber
 Author    



Rank:Diamond Member

Score: 575
Posts: 575
From: USA

(Date Posted:02/19/2009 6:19 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo

From: MSN NicknameLadyoftheGlade1  (Original Message)Sent: 6/15/2002 10:01 AM
This is one of the big mysteries of history.
The main suspects are:
RICHARD III
HENRY VII
THE DUKE of BUCKINGHAM
 
The above names have alawys been the only real suspects to the murders, however it has recently come to light that there in fact is another...HENRY VII's mother MARGARET!
 
Who do YOU think did it?
From: ForeverAmberSent: 6/15/2002 9:47 PM
I despise the revisionist spin historians are putting on Richard III these days!!!!!
 
After the Wars of the Roses, Richard did the only thing that could have been done---save the country from yet another boy king with yet another set of grasping uncles (those pesky Woodvilles & Greys).   Titlius Regius had effectively bastardized all of Edward IV's offspring.  The persons of the immediate male child heirs had been secured.  There was some grumbling but his usurpation was generally accepted.  He was a capable administrator & he wasn't a 12-year-old to be easily led.
 
That said, after Bosworth, when Henry VII wed Elizabeth of York, Titlius Regius was repealed to legitimicize the new queen & give additional credence to Henry's thin claim through the Beaufort line.  If those boys were still alive, then they were ahead of their sister in the succession.  The Tudors would prove to be so ruthless at eliminating their rivals that there would be a dearth of heirs within two generations.  DO THE MATH!!!!!!!!  Henry Tudor had far more reason to want these boys out of the way than Richard ever had.  The Princes had last been seen when moved from Sheriff Hutton to the Tower of London (help me out here, Stonehenge, can't recall zackly) about a year into Richard's reign.  Suddenly the Tudors blow into town & they are nowhere to be found????
 
Henry VII did it.  Go read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey & then attempt to refute this revisionist horsepucky. 
From: RhiannonSent: 6/15/2002 10:35 PM
I believe that the actual culprit was Henry's mother, Margaret.  I believe she would stop at nothing to see her son on the throne. I figure Henry found out after the fact. But what would he do to his own mother?
                                            Rhiannon  
From: AnnieBmeSent: 6/16/2002 6:54 PM
My vote is for the Beaufort B*tch!  Long suffering Margaret! 
 
She did nothing in her entire life after giving birth to Henry but promote him. (and she was only 13 years old when she had him)  He was groomed from the cradle, by her and later his Uncle Jasper, to take the throne.  I think she would have (and probably did) do ANYTHING which could ensure this.  It would also leave her darling Henry's hands "clean" in the matter.
From: MSN NicknameDoodlesUSSent: 6/17/2002 5:57 PM
How do we know for sure they didn't die of a childhood disease...and in fear their bodies weren't hidden in the tower or carted off somewhere?  Richard III, knowing he would be blamed, might have just wanted the bodies out of the way and no explanation given.  He would be blamed one way or another might he not?
From: ForeverAmberSent: 6/18/2002 1:03 AM
There was a study done many years ago when renovatiions to the Tower unearthed a pair of children's skeletons beneath a staircase.  By modern standards, the remains were of adolescent boys aged appproximately 12 & 14, the ages Edward & Richard were shortly before Bosworth.  So naturally there was a hue & cry about Richard III having done away with them (Methinks has an interesting theory there....though so few of them died of natural causes lol).
 
BUT....that is by MODERN standards!  People were SMALLER then.  A 14-year-old boy nowadays might have nearly attained his adult height.  In the 1400's, a boy of 16 or 17 might easily be the same size as today's 14-year-old.  So if those bodies ARE the fabled princes (& c'mon, what other kids have gone missing in the Tower?), they could have easily lived on a year or two into Henry VII's reign.  Though he was married to their eldest sister, I don't see Henry Tudor being squeamish about eliminating a threat to his precarious throne, especially after Arthur was born in 1486. 
 
Food for thought!!
From: MIlesgreenSent: 6/19/2002 1:22 PM
Richard done it... 
From: AnnieBmeSent: 6/19/2002 7:22 PM
While many believe Richard did it....Henry had MUCH MORE to gain by their deaths.  First and formost was the fact that he married Elizabeth of York and had Edward IVth children legitamized again.  This was wonderful for him marrying one of them but would put a real damper on his kingship if Edward V still lived AND was legitimate!

From: karrieSent: 11/17/2002 7:34 PM
If i remember rightly, the tests that were done on the skeletons found in the tower were undertaken in the 1930's. (tell me if there's me more recent tests). In that case, forensic medicine has come so far, that we could gain vital information if the urn holding the remains was re-opened now, especially if they could be tested alongside those of their closest relatives, ie their father and sister. The tests did not confirm that the skeletons were the Princes but it did not say they were not.
 
Also there is every chance that Prince Edward and Prince Richard would have been tall children, as both Edward IV and their sister Elizabeth were well known for their height, a trait which would be passed onto Henry VIII.
 
Karrie

From: MSN NicknameLadyoftheGlade1Sent: 11/17/2002 7:47 PM

I believe they are not going to do any test even though, as you say, we have dna now, which could definately identify them.  However, I think they would rather accept the bodies as those of the Princes' rather than take the chance and find out they aren't. 

At least that was the last I'd heard about it, perhaps someone else knows more.


From: karrieSent: 11/19/2002 9:12 AM
Here's a little snippet of info for you. Accourding to Alison Weir's book The Princes in the Tower, Anne Mowbray's skull was exhumed in 1964 and apparently there is some dental evidence to link her bones to those in the urn. Anne was Prince Richard's (the younger prince) wife, they were married as children and she was also his cousin.
 
This info accompanied a photo of the skull, and i'm still looking for what exactly this dental evidence is, but its interesting.
 
Karrie

From: ChrissieSent: 1/31/2003 9:05 AM
I read "Good King Richard?" by Jeremy Potter a while back and I noticed a couple of things that may or may not be of interest here (both on pages 133, to the best of my knowledge).
 
Firstly, the question of whether someone acting without Richard's knowledge killed the princes (thinking it was in Richard's best interest or acting in someone else's interests) is asked.
 
Secondly (and a bit OT), there is a mention of how Edward V had a jaw infection and may have died of natural causes. It goes on to say that none of the pretenders in Henry VII's time claimed to be Edward.
 
What does everyone else think?

From: karrieSent: 1/31/2003 9:21 AM




Believe it or not I have heard something about Edward V having some sort of
jaw problem before. To be honest I'm not sure where or when so i'm going to
have to do some research to find out. It might all turn out to be nothing
but we will see. Anyone else heard about this?


Karrie

From: MSN NicknameLadyoftheGlade1Sent: 2/1/2003 1:07 PM
Whether Edward did or didn't have a jaw infection (personally I don't think he did) is imaterial.  If he died of any kind of natural causes it would have been to all throne claimant's advantages to have a spectacular funeral, etc.  Niether Richard nor Henry needed these boys around.  They were a "problem" for both.  More so to Henry than to Richard.  Richard had had them declared illigitamate and so were really not a rival on thier own under those circumstances.  To Henry on the other hand, who had the illigitamacy overturned (he needed thier sister Elizabeth to be legitimate) then the boys being alive would have been a HUGE problem for him!  A natural death would have put to rest ANY speculation of foul play.  So I doubt very much that one or both of them met with anything but murder.
usertype:1
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:02/19/2009 6:22 AM)

From: MSN NicknameCatherineBk Sent: 8/26/2003 2:49 PM
Things are really dark in this matter. Both Richard and Henry had much to fear from the youngs. I do agree that when the princes were declared illegitimate, their menace grew shorther to Richard. And Henry married their sister. The main question is, none of then were safe with the boys. It's intreresting to gather all info we can about their health,ages, and everything else, so we can get to a "conclusion". Definitely one of the most amazing mysteries in the English and Tudor History! I'd like to say that I enjoyed reading everyone's point of view. You guys done a great job!
From: jkcelt Sent: 8/27/2003 10:27 PM
"Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields is very good, mentions the heridetary jaw disease, the problem with the bones in the urn and really turned my mind from Richard to SOMEONE else. What motive did Richard have? It kinda doubly insured his position if the boys were alive. That way if his own claim were questioned, he could claim protector of the boys. Not to mention his complete loyalty to his brother in every other matter.

Henry VII was ruthless, after all. Ruthless, ruthless, ruthless. What a hero, he didn't even take the field . . . anyway, he had much more to gain - the whole Titlius Regios thing. Not to mention the Tudor's masterful handling of propaganda. And their penchant for "getting rid" of enemies. There were still "roses" hanging around during the reign of Elizabeth, after all.
From: MSN NicknameLadyoftheGlade1 Sent: 10/26/2003 7:44 PM
I agree, Richard III had little to nothing to gain by having the Princes killed.  The only one's who had a real motive were the Duke of Buckingham and the soon to be Henry VII.  However...if you look back through this thread, you will find yet one more potential suspect...Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother!
 
Since the first time I came accross this hypothosis, it has chewed at me.  The more one looks at it, the more plausible and resonable this suggested suspect becomes.  More of the pieces fit in place to this mystery with Margaret being the "mastermind" behind the murders, then any of the traditional characters suspected.
From: judymar Sent: 11/23/2003 7:49 PM
I wonder if this jaw disease is the same that the Hapsburgs were known to have?? With the jaw disease from the Hapsburgs and the insanity from the Spanish, its a good thing Mary I had no children with Philip. As closely related as they were, their offspring would have been a mess!!
From: hythloday Sent: 11/24/2003 7:09 PM
i was always under the impression that the protruding jaw was a result of inbreeding.  am i wrong?
 
autumn
From: hythloday Sent: 11/24/2003 7:10 PM
oh yeah, i'm sorry but i still think richard did it!
From: MSN Nicknameterrilee62 Sent: 12/1/2003 1:19 PM
I think it's important for us, as amateur historians, to look at the evidence without bias.  I know that I first read Jan Westcott's "The White Rose" and saw Elabeth Woodville as a heroine and the marriage of her and Edward IV as a true love story, beginning to end.  I had a hard time shaking that notion as I have read more and more about her and her family.  In the same way, it is so easy to say that one person or another was responsible for the death of the princes based upon things that were written primarily for entertainment in the following century!  (Can you hear me, Will Shakespeare? ) It's the same today in the way that some countries base their ideas about the United States based upon our network tv sitcoms & such  !  In the case of the Princes, I look at the character of those accused, instead of if they had motive or opportunity.  Richard's character is reflected in his motto "Loyalty Binds Me".  Especially his loyalty to his brother Edward.  I won't recount all they went through, but it is understandable that Edward would choose Richard to help rule England until his son reached his majority.  Based upon his character, it is inconcievable that Richard would cold-bloodedly murder, or cause the murder of his brother's children.  Besides,  he wasn't stupid!  If they had died while under his care, there would have been an announcement of an accident and an open, state funeral like E4 had for H6.
 
Oh, to have a time machine!!!!
 
terri*lee
From: hythloday Sent: 12/1/2003 3:12 PM
thats so true.  i don't think its a good idea to use shakespeare as an ultimate source to explain richard's possible guilt.  we need look at other sources and attitudes, etc.  we may still come away with some of the same ideas but at least they are no longer suspect as just being creations of shakespeare!
From: judymar Sent: 12/1/2003 6:06 PM
terrilee,
I agree with you completely!!
From: MSN Nicknameromeomikegolf Sent: 12/2/2003 2:30 AM
First of all there is no direct evidence that the Princes were actually murdered. We have the account of Sir Thomas Moore, but he was an ambitious man possibly looking to enhance his career in Henry VII's and VIII's courts. We then have the finding of some bones some 150 years later that were declared by Charles II to be those of the Princes. Finally there is a suspect autopsy carried out in 1933.
Richard had the Princes and their sister Elizabeth declaed illigitamate by the Titulus Regius, this was supported by Canon Law at the time, ( Edward IV would often promise marriage to a woman to bed her and one time did it in the presence of a Bishop. This breach of promise invalidated his later marriage ).This declaration removed the threat that Edward posed to Richards succession. When Richard lost the throne in 1485, Henry revoked the Bill. Did he do this because the Princes had been dead for a couple of years, or because HE had them killed, and wanted to marry Elizabeth and couldn't unless he recognised her birth as legitimate?
Henry's claim to the Throne at that time was a very tenuous one based on the fact that his father had married a Kings widow.

I think Henry and his mother are very much in the frame.

From: hythloday Sent: 12/2/2003 3:32 AM
i just cannot believe that thomas more would knowingly fabricate this story.  whether it is a true account or just the current opinion, it was not in his character to be so decietful.  true, he was a man as much as the next but he had many more avenues open to him at the time to advance himself than to fabricate an historical event.  besides, if one feels his character is suspect, think only on the fact that he was cardinal wolsey's protege at one time and could have ridden the coattails of that great statesman at the time of the beginning of the divorce, yet he chose elsewhere.  that would've been much more of an opportunity to advance than a ficticious writing!  prior to his opposition to henry, he was often in his company for dinner and other informal ocassions.  during this time he had many ideological "debates" with henry during which he sometimes disagreed with his sovereign, albeit friendly!  it just doesn't make much sense to me that he would choose to write decietfully to further himself.  it didn't make much political sense.
 
autumn
From: MSN Nicknameromeomikegolf Sent: 12/4/2003 7:35 AM
Having just re read part of More's article, can we really be sure that the bones found in the tower at the foot of the stairs are actually those of the two Princes? Where is the evidence that the boys were really buried and left down there. More states that King Richard did not want them buried in such a place, but we must remember that More's account itself is full of innaccuracies and blanks and his sources were not amongst Richards supporters.
From: simon Sent: 12/4/2003 1:50 PM
Where's your evidence? Of course Richard III had much to gain from the death of the Princes of the Tower! A throne for one thing! He got rid of the reigning monarch and also the second in line to the throne! How on earth can you say he had nothing to gain! I was under the impression that Richard was in control in inprisoning the princes and didn't they disappear from public view when he was in control? Richard was only unlucky in that he lost at Bosworth 
From: AnnieBme Sent: 12/4/2003 4:50 PM
Simon: Richard III had much to gain from the death of the Princes of the Tower! A throne for one thing!
 
Annie: He already HAD the throne!  He had also illegitamized the boys and as so, they could not claim the throne.  Richard had BEEN on the throne for quite sometime when the boys "disappeared".  They were in no way a threat to his crown.
 
In fact their disappearance coincides with when Henry (VII) began he real thrusts into England.  Henry also was planning on marrying Elizabeth if he should win the crown and in order to do that he had to once again legitamize Edward IV's children, which would have given the boys BACK the ability to claim the throne away from HENRY VII.  Henry was the one who's crown would be threatened by the boys, NOT Richard!
From: simon Sent: 12/5/2003 10:52 AM
Since when has a king already being on a throne, stopped them from murdering rivals? It has happened throughout history! 
usertype:1 tt= 0
Support us

Create free forum and click the links below and your donations will make a difference here.

www.dinodirect.com

A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets.  
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:02/19/2009 6:25 AM)

From: simon Sent: 12/5/2003 10:54 AM
It has also been pointed out to me by another member, that other claimants have been made illegitamate, but this hasn't stopped them from becoming a monarch. For example Mary Tudor, to name but one off the top of my head.
 
simon
From: ForeverAmber Sent: 12/6/2003 12:44 AM
That was different!  Henry VIII's Act of Succession named all three of his children as his heirs plus passed over his sister Margaret & her heirs in favor of his sister Mary's heirs (ie, Frances Brandon & Jane Grey).  Also, Mary was never really accepted as the bastard Henry had her proclaimed, while Elizabeth had her partisans for her legitimacy as well.  No one took the part of the Princes & spoke up for them.  Their own mother & sisters came to Richard's court after Titilus Regius was passed.  Now, could you sit down to dinner with a man who had cold-bloodedly murdered your sons/brothers just on the off-chance there was a future rising in their favor? 
 
It was the TUDORS who systematically eradicated the remains of the White Rose.  They reacted to threats to their throne by eliminating possible rivals, however harmless; Margaret Pole's butchery springs to mind.  When Richard first assumed the throne, the boys were safe & sound at Sheriff Hutton!  They were not immediately cast into the Tower & done away with.  And of Richard did not shirk from callously doing away with his own nephews, then what of Warwick's survival into the Tudor years?  Richard was the YOUNGEST of York's sons, so Clarence's boy's claim was equally as strong as those of Edward's children.  Passing over these three minor heirs in favor of a seasoned battle veteran & competent administrator who was an ADULT & could rule NOW without a protracted regency was apparently what the people wanted.  Boy kings equated unrest, uncertainty, & conflict.  Richard was strong enough to take command of the situation & rule ably.
From: simon Sent: 12/6/2003 2:10 AM
Michael Hicks states that illegitimacy was not a fatal obstruction to the throne, and he cites further examples of William I, annd Henry VII to prove it.  Also,  Richard and Anne Neville, his wife, had never bothered to get the necessary dispensation from the pope to legalize their own marriage.  They were cousins, so,  technically sense, Richard's and Anne's own son Edward of Middleham could have been considered illegitimate. Thanks Mary for this info.
Foreveramber, first i must tell you that i am pro-Richard and yes he was an able administrator, who had he reigned longer would probably have a better reputation than he does now. Without getting bogged down into detail, who and what has Sherriff Hutton got to do with it? wouldn't he have done what Richard told him? In murdering the Princes, Richard reflected recent events. i.e. the murders of Edward II and Henry VI. I have to admit that its a few years since I have read anything on this subject, but i am going to refresh my memory and come back to you with further arguments!!!!!!
From: MSN NicknameLadyoftheGlade1 Sent: 12/7/2003 12:08 AM
I agree, Richard III had little to nothing to gain by having the Princes killed.  The only one's who had a real motive were the Duke of Buckingham and the soon to be Henry VII.  However...if you look back through this thread, you will find yet one more potential suspect...Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother!
 
Since the first time I came accross this hypothosis, it has chewed at me.  The more one looks at it, the more plausible and resonable this suggested suspect becomes.  More of the pieces fit in place to this mystery with Margaret being the "mastermind" behind the murders, then any of the traditional characters suspected.
From: judymar Sent: 12/7/2003 5:01 AM
I go along with Margaret also. Would also like to add about the strain of maddness that Henry VII must have inherited from his French great-grandfather, it affected him by making him utterly ruthless, and when he passed it on to his off-spring, it had to be the reason for some of thier actions, especially Henry VIII. I still say the Tudors were bonkers for any period of time, but they sure were interesting!

From: MSN NicknameLadyoftheGlade1 Sent: 12/8/2003 1:56 AM
I really don't think the "ruthlessness" was madness.  Pretty much all monarchs/rulers were until very recent times.  Just look at the Ottoman Empire where it was customary for a new Emporer to have all his brothers killed (even if they were not a threat) so their would be NO question about the assention!
 
Now with that said, there certainly was, however, more than a gene or two of maddness from the French side of the family.   And more than a bit of paranoia.

From: simon Sent: 12/8/2003 4:51 PM
For once i agree with theladyof the glade! There's no evidence that Henry VII was mad. In fact he was a very effective ruler and ruthlessness doesnot equate to madness!! Come to think of it neither Hiltler nor Stalin were mad, although they followed a course of madness in terms of being catastrophic for their countries.
 
simon 

From: AnnieBme Sent: 12/11/2003 2:05 AM
Simon: Come to think of it neither Hiltler nor Stalin were mad, although they followed a course of madness in terms of being catastrophic for their countries.
 
Annie: I agree with you about Stalin but strongly disagree about Hitler.  There has been much written about his maddness...but that is not our era here and I am not making these comments to have a discussion about 20th century history ... just couldn't let that "slide".

From: chthonic Sent: 3/25/2007 8:33 AM

Much has been written about the death of the princes in the tower. The story of Richards involvement only started forty years after their deaths. At that time, the Tudor reign was very tenuous and closer asperants to the throne were raising their heads above the gorse, and a 'witness' was needed to discredit the Plantaganents, hence one of the watchmen at the tower came forth and Shakespear wrote his play. (Old WS knew what side of the crumpet his butter was on) There is a book now out of print, called Daughter of our Time. If you see it in the second hand shops or a yard sale, get it!

From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5 Sent: 3/25/2007 9:14 AM
Suspicion of Richard's involvement began weeks not decades after the Princes' disappearance. In January 1484 Guillaume de Rochefort, Chancellor of France reported to the Estates General :
"Look, I pray you, at the events that have taken place in that country since the death of King Edward. Think of his children, already big and strong, murdered with impunity and the Crown transferred to their murderer by the will of the people".
Richard III was prime suspect then and rightly remains so. 

From: Greensleeves Sent: 3/26/2007 1:37 AM
The book is actually The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey

From: Greensleeves Sent: 3/26/2007 1:39 AM
I must point out that since Brittany was on the verge of extraditing Henry Tudor to England after RIIIs accession, he scampered off to France, & was there at the time this accusation was made by the French chancellor.

From: chthonic Sent: 3/26/2007 6:35 AM
Thank you for the actuall title of the book. My mother had a dog eared copy
for years. She was an advocate of RIII believing that he was the rightfull
heir to the throne. The Tudors, she contended, were usurpers.
usertype:1 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 3# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:02/19/2009 6:26 AM)

From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 3/27/2007 2:10 AM
Well, the fifteenth century was full of usurpers.  Richard III usurped the throne from Edward V, Edward IV usurped the throne from Henry VI (twice) and Henry IV usupred it from Richard II.  Usurping was a popular 15th century sport for royalty.
 
Louise
From: ForeverAmber Sent: 4/6/2007 12:45 AM
Usurping was a popular 15th century sport for royalty.  LMFAO
From: ForeverAmber Sent: 4/6/2007 12:55 AM
Since this thread has been resurrected, allow me to hurl out a suspect we haven't considered at all yet (just play along you anti-Ricardians LOL) & get some thoughts on it.
 
JASPER TUDOR,
EARL OF PEMBROKE
 
Jasper Tudor, Henry VIIs fraternal uncle, was unceasing in his efforts to preserve the last scion of the House of Lancaster.  He was basically the brains of the Lancastrian outfit after Somerset was killed at St Albans, & masterminded Henry Tudor's conquest with his keen tactical skills.  His wife, incidentally, was Catherine Woodville, Buckingham's widow.
 
Could Jasper have tied up this particular loose end on Henry's behalf?
 
Begatswise & totally irrelevant to this thread, an interesting lil bit of Tudor Trivia....tho Jasper & Catherine had no issue in their four year marriage, he did acknowledge two bastard daughters.  Helen, who grew up to be the mother of none other than Mary's pal Stephen Gardiner, & Joan, who was Oliver Cromwell's great-great-great-great grandma.

From: Greensleeves Sent: 5/26/2008 8:42 AM
OK no takers on FAs hurling in of Jasper Tudor?  Let's try these peeps on for size, then:
 
THE HOWARDS?
 
Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey (our Norfolk's papa) was tight with RIII in the brief reign of Edward V.  Allegedly he's the one who, on RIIIs behalf, lured Hastings to his death, & he also had the pleasure of arresting Jane Shore, EIVs mistress, later on in the proceedings.  His daddy, John Howard, also was mighty unfussed about the Norfolk dukedom remaining a title of Richard Duke of York's following the death of Richard's wife Anne Mowbray, the heiress to such, as the Howards would've been next in line for this according to their cousinly begats (& eventually they DID get it back from HVII). 
 
In the aftermath of Bosworth, all of RIIIs intimate circle were attainted....except for ol Surrey there
 
Now how come, that?  Had the Howards done HVII a big favor....say, like eliminating HVIIs competition?  Hmmm.....

From: MSN NicknameReplacedJudymar Sent: 5/28/2008 5:10 PM
I read a book about Jane Shore before, think it was by Jean Plaidy, but once again can't remember the name of the book...If I remember right, the ending had her wandering the streets in poverty to an old age....Does anyone have any more info about her? Just remembered "The Goldsmith's Wife".

From: MSN NicknameGeorgina62 Sent: 5/29/2008 8:17 AM
Can you tell me about this information, as I have never heard anything about Margaret being remotely involved with the Princes before, my own opinion is that it was Henry, I feel he had the best motive!!

From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5 Sent: 5/29/2008 2:29 PM
Why doesn't everyone just accept the obvious; it was Richard ! No other suspect comes close.

From: MSN NicknameMaryK6181 Sent: 5/29/2008 5:59 PM
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that thinks Margaret may have masterminded it, no I don't think she actually did it, but she paid, threatened, something to get someone else to do it in my opinion she was obsessed. Or maybe Henry VII could have his mother was obsessed and he had been raised to be King she could have put it in his head and he in another's.

From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 5/30/2008 3:15 AM
Richard did it.  He had means, motive, and opportunity.  Everybody at the time thought he had made away with them.  It was only centuries afterwards that people started coming up with all these fanciful theories that someone else might have done it. 
usertype:1 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 4# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:02/20/2009 11:08 AM)

Adding in from another thread on the subject:

From: MSN NicknameAnneBoleyn1981  (Original Message) Sent: 3/14/2007 2:24 PM
I would like to read about the two princes in the tower, but am aware that many writers are biased.  Can anyone recommend a book which tells the story, explaining who the suspects but leaves the reader to make up their own mind whodunnit?
 
Thanks in advance!
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 3/15/2007 8:41 AM
I know of no 'unbiased' account of the Princes in the Tower.  All the books I have read on the subject either come to the conclusion that Richard did it (which seems the only likely explanation to me) or try to convince us that someone else did it (which cuts no ice with me at all).  If there is an unbiased book on the subject, i've never come across it.
 
Louise
From: MSN Nicknameterrilee62 Sent: 3/17/2007 9:21 AM
I agree with Louise, in part, I've also never come across any books that were unbiased.  Maybe that's because I have my own viewpoint, and the books I've read seem to totally agree with me, or not at all!  I think most authors take up this story because they have an opinion that they want to get across and they, whether consciously or not, write the book from their point of view.
 
At this distance, of 500+ years, it's hard to have hard facts about this incident.  You can read what the ambassadors and chroniclers wrote, but you have to take into consideration their biases and the audience they were writing to.  It's like trying to find out if Anne Boleyn was beautiful or ugly - we truly don't know, we can only read people's opinion.
 
Heck, even Louise shows her bias - read how she describes the books - they either come to a conclusion - implying logic, or they try to convince her of something she doesn't believe - that Richard was innocent.  No disrespect intended, Louise, it was just something I noticed when reading your reply.
 
And for the record, I believe that it's not cut & dried that *anyone* is guilty - although I have a hard time reconciling Richard's life up to the point of his becoming king with a man who could kill his brother's sons.  And I think Margaret Beauford is a much more interesting villainess!
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5 Sent: 3/17/2007 3:46 PM
I agree with your assessment of the writers of books on the two Princes. If an author knows enough about the subject and is keen enough to write about it they must have an opinion and it's near enough impossible not to show that opinion in the finished book.
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 3/18/2007 4:27 PM
I have never seen any reason to believe that anyone other than Richard was responsible for the deaths of the princes.  He usurped the throne from them, imprisoned them in the Tower, and then after there was an uprising in their favour, they conveniently disappeared.  He was an utterly ruthless man, and was I believe capable of anything, including the murder of his nephews. I see no reason at all why anyone else should have been involved.
 
I think the idea that Margaret Beaufort could have had anything to do with the deaths of the princes is quite preposterous.  Nothing in history has ever suggested to me that she was anything other than a perfectly respectable lady, and I certainly do not believe that she was a child-murderer.
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameReplacedJudymar Sent: 3/18/2007 8:10 PM
So much written on the period with the princes and their "disappearence". Read as many novels you can and form your own opinion...I did, but as well I sometimes waver back and forth between all of those who wanted the princes out of the way. I do think it was Shakespeare who did Richard III such damage, and don't think he was any more terrible or ruthless than anyone else of the times.
From: Greensleeves Sent: 3/19/2007 10:44 PM
As king, Richard III introduced the concept of bail into the English justice system, decreed the laws must be written in the English language rather than in Latin or French as they had previously been codified, abolished the use of benevolences, & put forth the notion that only persons actually qualified for governmental positions be approved for such.  His Parliament was praised for correcting abuses in the justice system which had existed since Magna Carta.  He returned to the people land Edward IV had annexed as part of the royal forestry system, endowed the Queen's College at Cambridge (which if memory serves me right, was founded by Lancastrian archenemy Margaret of Anjou) with the sum of 500 marks per annum, & founded chantries in Middleham, York, & London.  The Rous Chronicle states that when RIII was offered monetary gifts by the populaces of York, London, & Gloucester, he declined to accept it, saying he would "rather have their love than their treasure". 
 
Even Polydore Vergil admitted RIII was a man of high courage, Sir Thomas More's History praises his command on the battlefield, & Edward IV praised not only his brother's success in the Scots campaign of 1482, but his compassion in his treatment of the Scots civilians.  RIIIs greatest detractors could not but admire his valor, his bravery, his vigor, his manliness, & his prowess at Bosworth, where he slew Henry Tudor's standard bearer William Brandon (Suffolk's father) & came within a hairsbreadth of taking out Henry himself.  Richard was held in the greatest affection by the peoples of the northern territories which he governed, & upon his death it was noted in the York Civic Records that "King Richard....was piteously slain & murdered, to the great heaviness of this city". 
 
Rous also states "The most mighty Prince Richard…all avarice set aside ruled his subjects in his realm full commendably, punishing offenders of his laws, especially extortioners and oppressors of his commons, and cherishing those that were virtuous, by the which discreet guiding he got great thanks of God and love of all his subjects, rich and poor, and great praise of the people of all other lands about him".
 
RIII was infrequently at Edward IVs court after Clarence's death, & remained for the most part in the north administering the king's justice in these lands.  His private & public reputation was excellent & he was held in generally high regard.
 
This is the sort of stuff to which I think Terrilee is referring, which makes it difficult for some to reconcile what is known of RIIIs character with the murder of the princes.  Despite Shakespeare penning such memorable lines as "thou lump of foul deformity", "poisonous hunchbacked toad", "wretched, bloody, & usurping boar", "I can smile, & murder while I smile", which pandered to his Tudor mistress Elizabeth, that wasn't the contemporary assessment of RIII.
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 3/21/2007 2:53 AM
Well, all monarch were ruthless of course, and most had no qualms about dispatching their rivals, as Henry IV did with Richard II, and Edward IV with Henry VI.  But I think by murdering two children, Richard III was considered to have gone beyond the limits of ruthlessness.
 
My favourite book on Richard is 'Richard III: England's Black Legend' by Desmond Seward.  I also like 'Richard III' by Michael Hicks, and 'Richard III and the Princes in the Tower' by A.J. Pollard.
 
I think Shakespeare was only presenting Richard in his play in the way that Richard was generally perceived in his day.  It's probably an exaggeration of Richard's true character, but I think it's pretty close to the truth.
 
Louise
From: MSN Nicknameterrilee62 Sent: 3/21/2007 2:23 PM
Well, AnneBoleyn1981, you're finding out that it's nearly impossible to find someone who knows about this time period who doesn't have a strong opinion!  Check out some other threads on this message board, in the Plantagenets & the Mysteries boards - you'll find lots of thoughts & deducing going on!  Also, search out your local library, and also at Amazon.com & Barnes & Nobles.com for books on this topic - there is practically no limit!
 
---terrilee---
From: MSN NicknameAnneBoleyn1981 Sent: 3/21/2007 3:36 PM
Thanks everyone!
usertype:1 tt= 0
MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 5# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:09/03/2009 3:06 PM)

According to Alison Weir today is the anniversary of the murder of the Princes in the Tower, 3 September 1483. The deed was carried out by Sir Walter Tyrell on the orders of Richard III. Sounds perfectly feasible to me.
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

terrilee
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 6# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:70
Posts:70
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:09/03/2009 7:05 PM)

Mark, you're like a little kid with a stick - you just can't help poking us Ricardians & getting everyone all riled up again, can you? smiley10


usertype:6 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 7# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:09/06/2009 4:10 PM)

You'd think with all the graphical nonsense I've collected I'd have a better stick than a magic wand to pass him ROFL:



Alison Weir drives me nuts.  Granted she writes well & can tell a compelling tale, & granted that when one doesn't have primary docs one gets to inject speculation & opinion into one's books....but even PG recanted how tough she was on Anne Boleyn, whereas when Weir hates you, it's forever, & she REALLY hates Richard III & Anne Boleyn.  She must be best buds with Desmond Seward (whose malignantly anti-Richard book, which I bought knowing it was just to see the opposing opinion, I just cannot get through with its virulence).  When Weir is merely regurgitating research she's good; I really like Henry VIII: The King & His Court because there's not much bickering to be done when dealing with recrds from the Board of the Green Cloth etc.  Even some of her earlier books she tends to favor herself over what's solid fact (the entire concept of incl Jane Grey in The Children of Henry VIII boggles the mind; Margaret Douglas would've been a better candidate, at least) & lately she's just resting on her laurels as the Catherine Swynford & Isabella She-Wolf #1 books weren't as fabulous as they were made out to be & don't get me started on her fictional forays after that horrid Jane Grey book.  I rarely despise a piece of historical fiction....even PG had some redeeming qualities until The Boleyn Inheritance....but Innocent Traitor is dreck & yes Alison that's FAs opinion ROFL we all get one.

Mark, which book hurls out the Sept 3rd date as most likely BTW?  It's not The Wars of the Roses, is it?
usertype:1 tt= 0
MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 8# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:09/07/2009 7:57 AM)

Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower. Chapter 13. 
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 9# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:09/07/2009 4:27 PM)

TYVM, will scan giant case of history books for it.

I just noticed you're mixing up your history mysteries there BTW....Walter Tyrell was the alleged shooter of William Rufus, while James Tyrell was the guy H7 pardoned....twice....in the space of a month....after becoming king....1st in June & then in July of 1486....splain why the man required 2 pardons a month apart....what did he do in that month for H7 that required pardoning, hmmm?

usertype:1 tt= 0
Berengaria
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 10# 



Rank:Bronze Member

Score:32
Posts:32
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:09/11/2009 5:44 PM)

Henry did attempt to date his reign from August 21, 1485 just to claim anyone who fought for Richard were traitors but didn't get away with it.  I could see Henry issuing general pardons to Yorkist supporters in the weeks and months immediately following his victory.  After all, he couldn't very well decimate the nobility with mass executions or he wouldn't have kept his throne long.  But pardons nearly a year later?  Odd, and the second one odder still.  It's the little nonsensical things that keep attracting pro-Ricardians.
usertype:6 tt= 0
Greensleeves
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 11# 



Rank:Platinum Member

Score:258
Posts:258
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/04/2009 1:29 AM)

What made Weir settle on Sept 3rd, Mark?
usertype:1 tt= 0
MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 12# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/04/2009 3:12 AM)

It's all based on the assumption that Sir James Tyrell did it on Richard's orders, if you don't accept that then the theory collapses.
She says Tyrell was ordered to travel to London to collect some wall hangings etc for the ceremony to create Richard's son Edward, Prince of Wales in York on 8 September. But he had another job to do while he was there, to dispose of the two Princes. Tyrell left York on 30 August and arrived in London on 3 September. He set off on the return journey on 4 September arriving back in York on 8 September. Therefore the only time he could have done the evil deed was on the evening of 3/4 September. 
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

The_Last_Boleyn
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 13# 



From: Australia

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/04/2009 7:58 AM)

Its actually really sad that we have no idea what happened to these two princes, since they were people after all. Perhaps coming up with a date is a way of having a day in which they are remembered...
usertype:5 tt= 0
Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 14# 



RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/04/2009 12:32 PM)

what does everyone think of the two skeletons that were found under a flight of stairs in the tower. Is it them? Has this ever been verified?

MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 15# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/04/2009 12:56 PM)

They've never been officially identified by DNA etc, but research has shown that there's no-one else the skeletons could reasonably be. The scraps of clothing date from the 15th century and there are no cases of two boys going missing in the Tower at any other time.
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

The_Last_Boleyn
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 16# 



From: Australia

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/04/2009 7:41 PM)

If they were going to try and match DNA from these skeletons, who would they be compared with? I would like to think that the princes survived, but since that it highly unlikely, I'll go for the skeletons under the staircase option...
usertype:5 tt= 0
MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 17# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/05/2009 2:31 PM)

If it was ever to be done, and it's very unlikely as the Princes' bones are in Westminster Abbey are the Queen's permission is required to exhume them, then the best way would be to compare the DNA with his brothers and sisters. Four of his sisters are buried in non-Royal locations, so they would be easier to exhume, if the graves survive that is.  
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 18# 



RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/05/2009 8:00 PM)

It would be so interesting to know for sure that it is them. However morbid this may be, I wish that the body of any historical figure could be exhumed and we could figure out for sure what they looked like. (of course most would be dust now, but I'm just speaking theoretically). For example, they've taken the mummified body of King Tut, and made pretty lifelike models of what he might have looked like. For example, it would be really cool if we could see what Anne Boleyn looked like, as all her portraits seem to be very different. To make a long story short, I would love to see all history's mysteries solved once and for all. (Wishful thinking now completed.) smiley14
The_Last_Boleyn
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 19# 



From: Australia

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/05/2009 8:25 PM)

I watched the King Tut thing too. Very interesting! That area of history is probably my second favourite after Tudors. I too, would love to see what Anne Boleyn looked like, but all of the wives had differing portraits. Catherine of Aragon was portrayed in many different ways. I think Catherine Howard would be interesting too, since it was her looks that attracted Henry to her...not so much now lol
usertype:5 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 20# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/07/2009 4:23 PM)

Their parents, Elizabeth Woodville & Edward IV, are buried in St George's Chapel, Windsor; I'd think that would be the logical place to cull DNA.  Their eldest sister, Elizabeth of York, is also buried in Westminster Abbey.  I've no idea where their little brother George or older sister Mary were buried in their parents' lifetimes, nor where Cicely, Catherine, & Bridget ended up.  You'd think, considering this is pretty much the greatest history mystery of all time, the queen would let folk muck about just a wee bit & get a definitive ID.  Wouldn't it be shocking if it turned out these bones were no relation to the Plantagenets at all? smiley8

I bet Charles II was quite pleased with himself to think the mystery had been "solved" in his day.
usertype:1 tt= 0
The_Last_Boleyn
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 21# 



From: Australia

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/07/2009 9:29 PM)

If it did turn out that they were no relation...how would that impact on the mystery itself? I think many people had decided that this was a good enough solution to the mystery. Perhaps the danger that the skeletons are unrelated are the real reason they haven't been identified...
usertype:5 tt= 0
MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 22# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/08/2009 12:46 PM)

Four of Edward and Richard's sisters were buried away from the traditional Royal burial sites. Cecily (Kyme) at Quarr Abbey on the Isle of Wight; Anne, Countess of Surrey in Framlingham Church, Suffolk; Katherine, Countess of Devon in Tiverton Church, Devon and Bridget at Dartford Priory, Kent. How many of these sites survive today I'm not sure. 
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

Greensleeves
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 23# 



Rank:Platinum Member

Score:258
Posts:258
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/25/2009 12:41 AM)

Looks like a job for Find A Grave, then LOL

Tis true that by Charles II making the assumption those bodies were Eddie & Richie (tho as Mark says, what other set of lads went missing?) that it kind of solves the mystery: they didn't make it out of the Tower alive, ergo, twas murder sans the hue & cry.  What we'll never know is which flunkey dunnit & to whom he owed his loyalty.

Then again.....methinks disposing of a pair of bodies in the Tower itself was mighty risky business.  Under a staircase meant disturbing lots of mortared stone & then piecing it all back together again, running the risk that someone might notice it was tampered with in the 1st place, let alone the racket it would cause & the chance someone not "in the know" would stumble across it.  Ya'd think it would be easier to hurl em into a cart & drive out & dump em off elsewhere.

Imagination overdrive: say ol Perkin was Richard of York, twas Eddie what died (as this seems to be generally accepted when attempying fictional works, Eddie never lives).....Eddie goes to get buried neath the stairs.....some poor lil unsuspecting servant lad hears the racket & pokes his nose in....whacked upside the head with a spade & hurled in with Eddie for eternity.....I kinda likes the theory LOL
usertype:1 tt= 0
terrilee
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 24# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:70
Posts:70
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:10/28/2009 8:50 PM)

I agree with you Greensleeves - it's hard to imagine being able to knock off the princes, bust down a staircase, dump the bodies in and seal it back up, all in one night.  And it's not like they had quick-setting concrete or something.  The conspiracy would have to involve several people, not just Tyrell and some henchmen.  Why on earth go to all that trouble when the Thames is right nearby?  Or for that matter, haul them out to the country side, like you said.  It's not like today, when the faces of royalty are on the news & everyone know what they look like.  Heck, they could have put raggedy clothes on them and dumped them off in a bad part of town, they would have been just two other street urchins (like Anne Neville when hiding from her brother-in-law Clarence).  Or, as I said in an earlier post, announce that they were ill, then dying and finally a nice, open state funeral - like Richard's brother did with Henry VI.  No one believed that the poor fool died of a broken heart (more like a broken head) but there was no festering rumors, either.






usertype:6 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 25# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:11/01/2009 11:10 PM)

At some pt Henry VIs grave was peeked at & his skull was all a-shambles, so he was most definitely whacked upside the head by some Yorkist (irritated with his prayers ROFL, though I do like that fictional theory I posted a while back regarding MoA doing it) & did not die a natural death.  Of all the crimes attributed to Richard III, this one is rather ridiculous.  I'm so sure Edward IV turned to him one night & said, "Yo, Dickon, go smack Henry with the flat of your broadsword for me, there's a good bro....& mind that withered arm of yours when ya do it".

You know, Greens does have a pt there.  This could not have possibly all been accomplished in one night & the entire burial site selection speaks more of panic than of premeditation.

Henry VII in a rage to find them still breathing when he took over, perhaps? smiley4
usertype:1 tt= 0
MarkGB
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 26# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:83
Posts:83
From: United Kingdom

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:11/02/2009 3:22 PM)

That's exactly what I think it was, a sudden decision to send Tyrell on his murderous errand leving it up to him what to do with the bodies. It worked well enough, they remained hidden for 190 years. If a murderer today could be sure his crime wouldn't be found out for 190 years he'd be well satisfied.
usertype:6 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett

Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 27# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:11/03/2009 10:22 PM)

Still amazing that it went undetected at the time.  I wonder if there were a lot of Tower folk "in" on it?  Like, did Brackenbury string a rope across said stairwell & say it was closed for repairs to allow the mortar to set & have an excuse for it?

While I was surfing for Titilus Regius in another thread I came across a pair of articles regarding exhuming the PITT & having their DNA tested against Mary Tudor Brandon's, as there's a locket with her hair still intact & she was their niece, so close in the mitochondrial dept.  Alas, it was shot down 2 yrs ago by the stupid Dean of Westminster on Her Majesty's orders.  The 1st article was posted in a Canadian group & was originally in the Daily Mail, & the 2nd is from the East Anglican Daily Times:

DNA tests on Princes in the Tower
5th March 2007

The sons of King Edward IV were imprisoned in the Tower of London by their uncle Richard III (above) in 1483. The imprisoned boys were King Edward V (who was king for just 2 months) and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York. How and when they died has been a mystery for centuries.

A researcher is hoping to use the strands trapped in a Tudor locket to discover the fate of two young princes who disappeared after being locked away in the Tower of London.

Brothers Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, the sons of King Edward IV, were imprisoned by their uncle Richard III in 1483. They were never seen again.

In 1674 skeletons of two children were discovered under a staircase in the tower leading to the chapel prompting speculation they were the remains of the princes.

John Ashdown-Hill, doctoral student in History at Essex University, is hoping a locket containing hair from Mary Tudor, the boys' niece (who was King Henry VIII's sister and King Louis XII of France's wife), will prove whether the bones are theirs.

He hopes mitochondrial DNA could be used to match the remains to Mary's DNA. Edward, 12, and Richard, nine, were imprisoned by Richard III after an act of Parliament known as Titilus Regius declared them illegitimate.

Richard III was next in line to the throne and became King. Mystery surrounds the disappearance of the boys but popular legend suggests they were murdered by the king or by the Duke of Buckingham or Henry VII.

The locket is kept in Moyse's Hall Museum in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, and is seeking permission to get hold of it from St Edmunsbury Borough Council.

Mr Ashdown-Hill said: "There is just one problem; at the moment the locket which has held this lock of hair since at least the 1840s, refuses to open. Hopefully conservation staff from the Colchester Museums Service will be able to unseal it for me."

But staff at the council said the request may prove difficult because of fears of damaging the locket.

Alan Baxter, museums manager, said: "We've been through this already with someone else and even got as far as trying to open the locket.

"However, it is sealed shut so we went no futher for dear of damaging the locket."

Mr Ashdown-Hill must also seek permission from the Queen to examine the remains, which were reburied at Westminster Cathedral.
dailymail.co.uk


Royal hair DNA test bid thwarted

Monday, March 12, 2007 | 10:30

HOPES that a lock of royal hair kept in west Suffolk could solve the centuries-old mystery of what befell the Princes in the Tower appear to have been quashed by a leading cleric.

Essex University's John Ashdown-Hill believed a lock of Mary Tudor's hair stored at Moyses Hall Museum, in Bury St Edmunds, could be cross-checked with remains thought to belong to her two uncles, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, who were locked in the Tower of London by Richard III in 1483.

The fate of the brothers - the sons of Edward IV but declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament known as Titilus Regius - remains unknown because, after being locked away, they were never seen again.

Legend has it the boys were murdered, possibly by Richard III, the Duke of Buckingham or Henry VII. During renovation work at the Tower in 1674, the skeletons of two children were found under a staircase leading to the chapel.

It is thought these might belong to the two princes which, using modern DNA testing techniques, could have been checked against the lock of hair in Bury, because Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII, would have the same mitochondrial DNA as the princes.

Such a possibility has now been ruled out by the Dean of Westminster Abbey who said: “These are the remains of two innocent children that have been there for many centuries and it would be highly inappropriate, for any purpose of inquiry, to disturb them.”

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace added similar approaches and requests had been made in the past, though had also been turned down.

Mr Ashdown-Hill said he was aware of The Queen's views on the matter, acknowledging that giving permission might set a precedent for disturbing royal remains.

But he added his quest to put together a DNA sequence for Mary Tudor would continue unfazed because once it was on record, it would remain forever.

And, he said, a future Dean of Westminster Abbey or Monarch might take a different view adding: “One has to take a long-term view.

“My intention is just to get a DNA sequence on record so that if anybody returns to this matter in the future they can look at my research."

usertype:1 tt= 0
Greensleeves
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 28# 



Rank:Platinum Member

Score:258
Posts:258
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:11/13/2009 8:45 AM)

OK why the queen gotta be so uncooperative with this?  She lets em dig stuff up all the time & muck round with other corpses.  And Mary Tudor's grave be pitiful for royalty, they oughta fix that.  I'm shocked Henry just let Brandon dump her off in Bury St Edmunds like that.  Even Arthur's lollygagging in a cathedral.  What would it hurt to pinch a couple of bone fragments from the alleged PITT?
usertype:1 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 29# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:11/19/2009 12:22 PM)

It's likely because they're the queen's rellies 11dy6x removed or something.  It's been 500 years, c'mon, & it's not like they were actual ancestors.  I'm sure my 500-year-old rellies somewhere in Europe probably have a housing complex atop them or something by now ROFL  And you're right, if she's so concerned about them then why don't they give Mary a better resting place than a slab surrounded by linoleum?

OK I'm looking at Find a Grave.  Bridget's plot at Dartford Priory no longer exists & it's Henry VIIIs fault.  He built a manor on it after the Dissolution & it became part of Anne of Cleves' settlement.  You think he'd have the class to move his own aunt!

Catherine, Countess of Devon's grave at St Peter's Churchyard in Tiverton, Devon stills exists.  She was Courtenay's grandmother.  As her hubby died in 1511 & she took a vow of chastity.  Must've been a splendid marriage ROFL

Cicely is noted as Cecelia at Find A Grave (splains why I couldn't find her before) & though Quarr Abbey on the Isle of Wight is in ruins, it doesn't say the grave has vaporized like it did with Bridget's.

Anne was a tough nut to crack as for some odd reason she's listed under Howard, having been married to our Tudor Surrey/Norfolk's father.  She's in St Mary's, Lambeth, London.

I did find Mary & little George.  They're in St George's Chapel, Windsor, with their parents.

Just as a side note....Richard of York (sans head, I assume) was buried at Fotheringhay, which is also in ruins.  Clarence & Isabel Neville are at Tewkesbury Abbey.  Their effigy thing has crumbled to dust & so have they, it says they're in a glass box now on the wall of the vault.  I'm going to bookmark this Plantagenet search page & add some more into the Find a Royal Grave thread, as it also came up with a few other Plantagenets of earlier times.


(Message edited by Forever_Amber On 11/19/2009 1:34 PM)
usertype:1 tt= 0
terrilee
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 30# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:70
Posts:70
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:11/19/2009 8:29 PM)

Just a few thoughts as I read your 'find-a-grave' listings on the POT's sisters - they always make me sad - those younger York girls.  Catherine & Bridget were 4 & 3 when E4 died, they prolly didn't even remember him or what it was like to be England's princesses.  They were just pieces on a chessboard, to their father, mother & later brother-in-law.

Richard Duke of York, as well as his son Edmund Earl of Rutland was brought with honors to Fotheringhay by his son Edward IV.  (Wiki says he was buried in Fotheringhay Church {not castle} in 1476) I find it hard to believe that E4 would not have had his father's and brother's heads removed from Mickelgate Bar and buried alongside the bodies.  BTW, Proud Cis was buried opposite her husband in Fotheringhay Church some 35 years later.
usertype:6 tt= 0
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 31# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:575
Posts:575
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:01/12/2010 12:49 PM)

Maybe Margaret of Anjou stuck them in a bag.  MQOS carried a head around, didn't she?
usertype:1 tt= 0
terrilee
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 32# 



Rank:Silver Member

Score:70
Posts:70
From: USA

Reply To Forever%5FAmber
(Date Posted:01/12/2010 8:51 PM)

FA, I think you're thinking of Bess Throckmorton - wife of Sir Walter Raleigh.  According to this fun site, she kept his head in a red leather bag for 29 years.  After she died, their son took custody of the bag & it wasn't until some time after he died that the head was finally buried!  
Re Margaret of Ajou - she had the York heads set on the Mickelgate Bar of the city of York and they remained until Edward regained control.  I doubt that she had them taken down - as far as she was concerned, once the Duke of York was dead, he was powerless and she didn't care about him anymore.  I really don't think she cared enough about  him or Edmund or the Neville kin (can't remember which one) that died at Sandal Castle.
usertype:6 tt= 0
Greensleeves
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 33# 



Rank:Platinum Member

Score:258
Posts:258
From: USA

RE:Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?
(Date Posted:06/28/2010 11:44 PM)

I just do NOT get the head carrying thing, & methinks FAs reference was about MQOS having St Margaret's head?  Where did I see that?  Dunno.  Lost it.  Much like Raleigh did LOL

Twas the Kingmaker's papa, also Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who lost his head after Wakefield.  He was either Cicely's bro or uncle or cuz, I disrecall which.  I'm thinking half-bro, methinks Ralph Neville might've been married 2x, the 2nd wife being Cicely's mum Joan Beaufort.  But I know he was a rellie & for some reason it sticks in my head that he was 60 when he was truncated, so at least 20 yrs older than Cis if not more, which is why I'm thinking half-sib (either than or Joanie had one tired uterus LOL).  Edward IV wasn't the oldest York & he was like 18 then, Anne, Marchioness of Exeter, was the eldest, & nobles bred earlier than common folk back then.
usertype:1 tt= 0
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
New Topic New Poll

" height=86 width=189>
[List Sites] [Random] [Join]
Sign Up | Create | About Us | SiteMap | Features | Forums | Show Off | Faq | Help
Copyright © 2000-2014 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.

Get cheapest China Wholesale,  China Wholesale Supplier,  to be a retailer is easy now.
LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY
LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY