Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mrlukeduke

The Princes in the Tower: Will the ultimate cold case finally be solved after more than 500 years?

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-princes-in-the-tower-will-the-ultimate-cold-case-finally-be-solved-after-more-than-500-years-10466190.html

 

 

It is perhaps the greatest of all cold cases: who was responsible for the death of the two Princes in the Tower. But historians who believe their disappearance will forever remain a mystery should think again.

 

Philippa Langley, the historian and screenwriter who spearheaded the Looking for Richard project that resulted in one of the greatest historical discoveries of modern times – the grave of Richard III located beneath a car park in Leicester – is back once more, attempting to crack the case, The Independent can reveal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd hoped maybe this meant they were either allowing testing on the 2 children's bodies found at the foot of the stairs or entry into Edward IV's tomb and the accompanying 'small' coffins therein, but this just sounds like more research done along similar lines to what's already been done. Love the subject, but doubt much new will come to light.

Additionally, even as a Rickardian, I don't necessarily agree that a purely criminalistic approach significantly lessens Richard III as a prime suspect. I'll agree that there are a lot of problems with the traditional line of thinking, but I think even with those in consideration Richard is still a major contender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard had the opportunity, but not the motive. Henry had the motive, but not the opportunity.

 

I go for third party involvement, or at least one case of natural causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard had the opportunity, but not the motive. Henry had the motive, but not the opportunity.
 
I go for third party involvement, or at least one case of natural causes.


Richard had the motive...it's just not as clear cut as his accusers make it, nor does his handling of it make perfect sense under the circumstances. But that's often true in RL.

Henry VI was probably killed...possibly by Richard...after he'd been replaced, too. As long as they lived, his nephews would be a threat to his reign and his heirs. Richard seems reasonably realpolitik, so his doing it wouldn't completely shock me. Obviously the Warwick example clouds the issue...but depends in part on what disability, if any, existed. And there are other strains of his character which argue against his guilt...but his execution of Hastings is IMO the most suspicious act which would align with the type of guy who'd kill his nephews and not handle it all that well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boys had been disinherited via Act of Parliament, and were in safe custody. They were no more a threat than Warwick was, and killing them would be terrible public relations.

 

Henry VI was a Lancastrian, and an adult who had reigned for nearly four decades. Different kettle of fish from murdering your own Yorkist nephews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boys had been disinherited via Act of Parliament, and were in safe custody. They were no more a threat than Warwick was, and killing them would be terrible public relations.

In practical terms, though, they were a threat. Attainders were usually reversed, and the period showed that any bar to the throne only existed as an academic obstacle so long as real power got behind it. In terms of motive, all that's needed is the realistic possibility that they could be used as figureheads for rebellion. If the Tudor cause could be realized, Edward IV's sons were certainly a risk.


 

Henry VI was a Lancastrian, and an adult who had reigned for nearly four decades. Different kettle of fish from murdering your own Yorkist nephews.

Different, but along the same lines. After Neville switched sides the divisions were much more fluid, and the Princes in the Tower would make a better anti-Richard cause than Henry Tudor, if not strictly speaking a better Lancastrian one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with James here. From Richard's POV killing the boys would have risks, but letting them live and just grow old in the tower would have risks as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×