"Princes not killed in the tower" Topic

The person who dug up Richard III has been digging up documents that suggest that not only did the princes not die in the tower, but they spent several years trying to gain their revenge.
link

The easy way to disprove all the new ideas is for the bodies found and buried as the princes to be DNA tested, particularly since they have Richard IIIs DNA for comparison. Will Charles agree.

I can't watch it. What's the gist?

Deucey +1

OK in the UK

link

Try this slightly more direct link.

The bodies found in the tower in the 18th or 19th Century HAVE been tested – they're not the princes. On the other hand, people keep overlooking the fact that the news of Richard's death reached London over a week before the victorious army did and the Yorkists were in control of the city. If there had been a live prince in the Tower, a properly crowned Yorkist king would have greeted Bolingbroke at the gates of London with thanks for ridding England of the usurper.

According to a BBC documentary I saw, Richard IV reigned for 13 years

the youngest died in the west country and is buried there with a yorkist rose in the ceiling above his burial place

the bodies found where no t of the right age or dated top the same century, more lokley poor bodies lilled in work and just buried there to avoid problems

the princess in the tower where protected by Richard from Tudor assasinations and paid for treachery by Margret Beafort the real villian of the wars of the roses

whyt is anyone talking about Henry Bollingbrooke, you mean Henty Tudor? My thinking is that Richard after the " Rescue attempts by tudor assasins", the prices where smuggled out to assume different names especially after Richards son died as if he didnt acquire children with Elkizabeth woodville those boys where the future. I think that they where placed in saftey and when the tudirs arrived they spun a takle to rule out a succession. I thimk the youngest died as a gentleman in anonimity abd the eldest returned as Waldbeck in rebellion

The hunchback did it…

marmont1814: Did you type that message in Welsh?! ;-D

Korvessa – was the documentary called Blackadder by any chance?

I watched the documentary last night. The evidence is quite compelling and the documentary well done and entertaining. The gist of it is that the eldest son Edward was actually the leader of the rebellion that ended at Stokes Field and died with the Earl of Lincoln – Lambert Simnell was just a diversion to cover the truth that the Princes were still alive. The youngest Prince, Richard, was the leader of the Perkins Warbeck rebellion, again, covered up by Tudor propaganda.
Most of the evidence comes from the continent and appears to be genuine. It's well worth a watch and as the lady has a good track record of digging up the truth ( pun intended) I would hesitate to dismiss her claims.

Korvessa – was the documentary called Blackadder by any chance?

In the immortal words of Buggs Bunny:
Could be – LOL

The point is, it is just a theory, and not new. One of the main problems is the scarcity of source material, the foreign documents are interesting but no guarantee they are accurate. The so called documentary was heavily weighted to support the 'new theory' and of course dismissed any opposing views. The Richard III fanboys are just as effective in their own propaganda. However as Henry imprisoned one of the Yorkist candidates, the Earl of Warwick why would he have any qualms about dealing with the Princes? Is there a book deal connected to the documentary?

What Arcane Steve said …

Langley has a credible record for joining the dots …

Cheers
JJ

What Jack Jones said!

The point is, it is just a theory, and not new.

I believe I came across it at school, or least the traditional story of the murdered Princes may not be correct, which would have been in the 80's, when they jumped to a more analytical approach to learning history.