I understand the desire to let the bones of the dead lie in peace, but it seems to me that a modern forensic evaluation of the remains of the two children found on the grounds of the Tower of London (now resting in Westminster Abbey) could be very important in understanding this mystery. Simple DNA testing could start with evaluating if both sets of remains were male - if not then no further analysis needed. However, if both male then test to see if they are related as siblings and if so then if they are of Plantagenet heritage. We are talking about the potential remains of a King of England (Edward V) - last time unknown remains were uncovered and found to be royal (Richard III) no one seemed too concerned about just letting the dead lie in peace.
I think the boys in the tower ought to have their DNA read? we owe it to them to see if they are the royal princes/king. Historians are wearing themselves out trying to solve what happened to the boys and they can't go any further without dna. They would know exactly how the boys died if it is them.
Should a campaign happen to ask for this to happen? There would be a lot of interest. Does anyone want to run a campaign page? Would anything happen to the condition of the bones if DNA is taken? Legal aspect to protect dead bodies in the country? Perhaps other aspects need to be considered?
I should have listened to what Lucy's documentary said about the boys in the tower. With that and the talk with Nathan - it is obvious that examining the skeletons for DNA evidence is not to be.
...and yet, the title "Edward V" was never taken by a subsequent king, tho' there were two further Edwards that were crowned. Also, the remains in question of being the "Princes in the Tower" now reside in Westminster Abbey, the final resting place for 30 previous Kings and Queens.
On the other hand, after Edward IV’s death his marriage was declared illegal by Richard et al., so technically the Princes in the Tower were bastards and would not have been eligible to take the throne. Begs the question further as to why Richard would want them dead, though perhaps he was just cleaning up any loose ends.
That seems reasonable to me. And you could argue none of this would have happened if the Woodvilles had not been so hated, or if Edward IV's son had been older.
I love the Lucy Worsely Investigates series, including on the Princes in the Tower. You are always a wonderful host and the production values are high enough to hold the attention of my tween daughter, so well done! One thing that strikes me about this particular topic (and full disclosure, I'm American not British) is the reluctance to do modern testing on the remains said to be the princes. I do understand the argument you make well in your series, what would really be gained by testing and does that curiosity out way respect for the remains. But if the remains had been found recently instead of having several hundred years of can I say "baggage," would we hesitate to test them? I'd love to hear your and Nathan Amin's thoughts. Thank you so much!
Every time I taught the Middle Ages I would get the question of whether or not Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews - students were always disappointed by my firm assertion that he was. Like so many, I was really excited by the discovery of his bones - the extent of his scoliosis was clear and rather surprising, while the forensic modeling of his head was riveting. I have also been fascinated by the recent work focusing on what he might have sounded like based on the shape of his mouth and jaw and his surviving letters, which were written phonetically. But for some reason people fail to understand that none of this alters the underlying truth that he was nevertheless responsible for their deaths. I was appalled by the so-called “documentary” (on PBS last year, I think) about the “new” piece of “evidence” found in France - it was a willful disregard of the basic principles of historical research. No wonder this question continues to be asked.
My wife is utterly convinced of Richard iii innocence and, until recently, so was I.! I still have a harbouring sympathy with him and a lingering doubt of his guilt , however, logic demands that he must have ordered the death of the Princes. Is there evidence of that? No, but what had he to gain by leaving them alive and he had a lot to lose by doing so!
The scientist in me requires that a DNA analysis should be done on the children's remains in Westminster Abbey, notwithstanding the notion that we should let the dead lie in peace. A whole carpark was dug up to find Richard and forensic analysis undertaken on his remains.
A couple of things I’ve never really heard anyone talking about that I’d love to hear someone discuss.. Firstly, to put into perspective Richard’s entire life during the War of the Roses and why he would have been so justifiably terrified of there being a young king Edward on the throne. Even if he did it, you can then understand the ‘why’ of it all. Secondly, no one ever talks about the actions and behaviour of the Princes’ mother. Surely human nature tells us that the answer to when they died lies there? I think her behaviour tells us exactly when they died or at very least when she found out.
I believe that historians (both popular and non) will continue to battle public perceptions of historical figures-especially those connected to big events such as the Princes of the Tower. In the book "What is History Now?", there is an essay that discusses how media has molded public understanding and belief in modernized portrayals as the gospel "truth". It is this cultural flood of various depictions that shift narratives in some cases far from the evidence to become accepted as the "real" story. Historians have a harder case in changing public opinion not only understanding that in the context of the event but also in the context of modern day story telling. Richard III is certainly one of history's most mysterious men as he has been fighting bad PR since H7 began telling the story!
Thanks Lucy and comments from others. A typically balanced Lucy approach.
Agreed the probability is that the Richard 'team' did it, But clear, court-level evidence as to 'Who (actually) done it let alone ordered it', will always remain a mystery unless someone turns up a signed 'confession' that is really what it seems. At the moment we rely on probability plus hearsay, much of it compelling, but still not definitive.
Re the DNA line, yes fascinating but alas it won't give us the 'who'.
I am a devout Ricardian, member of the society, read everything published, even wrote my own book about “what happened” before Philippa found him and spoiled my entire thesis, dammit! However, Occam’s Razor and all that. Of course he had them killed. Yes there are a whole host of shady characters with various motives but it boils down to “who had ACCESS?” Richard. Richard had access. Even in 1483 infanticide wouldn’t have been a good look and this thing was meticulously suppressed. That said, I don’t believe this is a decision Richard made lightly. He loved his brother (E IV) and E IV trusted him implicitly. I feel he must have thought the Woodvilles were SO shifty and SO dangerous to him, his own son, and all he had fought for, that self-preservation was motive enough for him. In spite of all this, I think R3 would have been a very good king given time.
Your comment was so interesting to read. (I'm not from the UK, but from Hungary, so hence my ignorance.) I knew of the Society, but it seems I falsely assumed that being a Riccardian meant believing he didn't do it/wasn't responsible. :)
Sets me right and good to know this is not the case.
the mission of the society is to promote research into his life and times, and reassess his character and achievements. however, not all of us are so dazzled as to completely ignore what is right in front of us. It was a brutal time, and while infanticide and regicide weren’t cool, the man had a lot to lose under a woodville-controlled king. Regardless, he was fascinating and is an interesting man to study.
Yes, in those times, being competent and ruthless were required to stay on the political board. He was a very clever strategist & miliary man & politician. His success in the North was not because of random chance. :)
The logic of Occam’s Razor gives credence to your reluctance to embrace the defence of Richard III as not being a child killer. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and assessments of material self-interest to suggest that Richard had blood on his hands. But then, so many rulers in that time period, as well as long before and long after then, had similar “damned spots” on their extremities.
But I would not be averse to DNA testing on those two skeletons. It would certainly be of historical interest. And if that would get more people interested in history, that wouldn’t be a bad outcome.
In the article in history extra. The chain of Edward v was found to be with lady Margaret Capell.Margaret was the sister in law of Tyrell. Man identified by More as the orchestrating of the prince's murder. Tyrell had confessed during imprisonment to killing them. He was Richard III right hand man. At the end of the article they say looks like Richard III is guilty. The Capells lawyer was John More, father of Thomas More. I won't write anymore in case you buy the magazine.
Is it possible to have DNA testing done with the current Monarchy? Would the Windsors prefer not to know if that is the princes? Would it effect the current monarch at all? Tracy from Pennsylvania.
I think sometimes we have a hard time facing the facts (which John Adams said, "are stubborn things.") I watched your documentary on the Princes, and it was really interesting to see how you looked at the documents and the discussions you had with the various historians, piecing things together. It showed me a whole new perspective on what happened.
I completely agree that this historical period should remain fake-news-free. If only all of time could also be so. Aside from our huge appetite for murder mysteries (which I myself love, I confess) I wonder if people find it too horrific to accept that a high profile, royal uncle would murder two innocent children and so would do much to try to prove that he didn’t.
A much needed breath of the fresh air of logic. Occam's razor argues that Richard III did it and until there is something other than wishful, unsubstaniated circumstantial evidence otherwise, that's the way to go.
I understand the desire to let the bones of the dead lie in peace, but it seems to me that a modern forensic evaluation of the remains of the two children found on the grounds of the Tower of London (now resting in Westminster Abbey) could be very important in understanding this mystery. Simple DNA testing could start with evaluating if both sets of remains were male - if not then no further analysis needed. However, if both male then test to see if they are related as siblings and if so then if they are of Plantagenet heritage. We are talking about the potential remains of a King of England (Edward V) - last time unknown remains were uncovered and found to be royal (Richard III) no one seemed too concerned about just letting the dead lie in peace.
I think the boys in the tower ought to have their DNA read? we owe it to them to see if they are the royal princes/king. Historians are wearing themselves out trying to solve what happened to the boys and they can't go any further without dna. They would know exactly how the boys died if it is them.
Should a campaign happen to ask for this to happen? There would be a lot of interest. Does anyone want to run a campaign page? Would anything happen to the condition of the bones if DNA is taken? Legal aspect to protect dead bodies in the country? Perhaps other aspects need to be considered?
I should have listened to what Lucy's documentary said about the boys in the tower. With that and the talk with Nathan - it is obvious that examining the skeletons for DNA evidence is not to be.
Was the boy actually a king? He was never crowned or anointed.
...and yet, the title "Edward V" was never taken by a subsequent king, tho' there were two further Edwards that were crowned. Also, the remains in question of being the "Princes in the Tower" now reside in Westminster Abbey, the final resting place for 30 previous Kings and Queens.
True.
On the other hand, after Edward IV’s death his marriage was declared illegal by Richard et al., so technically the Princes in the Tower were bastards and would not have been eligible to take the throne. Begs the question further as to why Richard would want them dead, though perhaps he was just cleaning up any loose ends.
That seems reasonable to me. And you could argue none of this would have happened if the Woodvilles had not been so hated, or if Edward IV's son had been older.
I love the Lucy Worsely Investigates series, including on the Princes in the Tower. You are always a wonderful host and the production values are high enough to hold the attention of my tween daughter, so well done! One thing that strikes me about this particular topic (and full disclosure, I'm American not British) is the reluctance to do modern testing on the remains said to be the princes. I do understand the argument you make well in your series, what would really be gained by testing and does that curiosity out way respect for the remains. But if the remains had been found recently instead of having several hundred years of can I say "baggage," would we hesitate to test them? I'd love to hear your and Nathan Amin's thoughts. Thank you so much!
Every time I taught the Middle Ages I would get the question of whether or not Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews - students were always disappointed by my firm assertion that he was. Like so many, I was really excited by the discovery of his bones - the extent of his scoliosis was clear and rather surprising, while the forensic modeling of his head was riveting. I have also been fascinated by the recent work focusing on what he might have sounded like based on the shape of his mouth and jaw and his surviving letters, which were written phonetically. But for some reason people fail to understand that none of this alters the underlying truth that he was nevertheless responsible for their deaths. I was appalled by the so-called “documentary” (on PBS last year, I think) about the “new” piece of “evidence” found in France - it was a willful disregard of the basic principles of historical research. No wonder this question continues to be asked.
My wife is utterly convinced of Richard iii innocence and, until recently, so was I.! I still have a harbouring sympathy with him and a lingering doubt of his guilt , however, logic demands that he must have ordered the death of the Princes. Is there evidence of that? No, but what had he to gain by leaving them alive and he had a lot to lose by doing so!
The scientist in me requires that a DNA analysis should be done on the children's remains in Westminster Abbey, notwithstanding the notion that we should let the dead lie in peace. A whole carpark was dug up to find Richard and forensic analysis undertaken on his remains.
A couple of things I’ve never really heard anyone talking about that I’d love to hear someone discuss.. Firstly, to put into perspective Richard’s entire life during the War of the Roses and why he would have been so justifiably terrified of there being a young king Edward on the throne. Even if he did it, you can then understand the ‘why’ of it all. Secondly, no one ever talks about the actions and behaviour of the Princes’ mother. Surely human nature tells us that the answer to when they died lies there? I think her behaviour tells us exactly when they died or at very least when she found out.
Regardless if he ordered their deaths, they were children under his care and he was the king, thus he is responsible for their disappearance.
I believe that historians (both popular and non) will continue to battle public perceptions of historical figures-especially those connected to big events such as the Princes of the Tower. In the book "What is History Now?", there is an essay that discusses how media has molded public understanding and belief in modernized portrayals as the gospel "truth". It is this cultural flood of various depictions that shift narratives in some cases far from the evidence to become accepted as the "real" story. Historians have a harder case in changing public opinion not only understanding that in the context of the event but also in the context of modern day story telling. Richard III is certainly one of history's most mysterious men as he has been fighting bad PR since H7 began telling the story!
Thanks Lucy and comments from others. A typically balanced Lucy approach.
Agreed the probability is that the Richard 'team' did it, But clear, court-level evidence as to 'Who (actually) done it let alone ordered it', will always remain a mystery unless someone turns up a signed 'confession' that is really what it seems. At the moment we rely on probability plus hearsay, much of it compelling, but still not definitive.
Re the DNA line, yes fascinating but alas it won't give us the 'who'.
I am a devout Ricardian, member of the society, read everything published, even wrote my own book about “what happened” before Philippa found him and spoiled my entire thesis, dammit! However, Occam’s Razor and all that. Of course he had them killed. Yes there are a whole host of shady characters with various motives but it boils down to “who had ACCESS?” Richard. Richard had access. Even in 1483 infanticide wouldn’t have been a good look and this thing was meticulously suppressed. That said, I don’t believe this is a decision Richard made lightly. He loved his brother (E IV) and E IV trusted him implicitly. I feel he must have thought the Woodvilles were SO shifty and SO dangerous to him, his own son, and all he had fought for, that self-preservation was motive enough for him. In spite of all this, I think R3 would have been a very good king given time.
Your comment was so interesting to read. (I'm not from the UK, but from Hungary, so hence my ignorance.) I knew of the Society, but it seems I falsely assumed that being a Riccardian meant believing he didn't do it/wasn't responsible. :)
Sets me right and good to know this is not the case.
the mission of the society is to promote research into his life and times, and reassess his character and achievements. however, not all of us are so dazzled as to completely ignore what is right in front of us. It was a brutal time, and while infanticide and regicide weren’t cool, the man had a lot to lose under a woodville-controlled king. Regardless, he was fascinating and is an interesting man to study.
Yes, in those times, being competent and ruthless were required to stay on the political board. He was a very clever strategist & miliary man & politician. His success in the North was not because of random chance. :)
Does this mean that Hillary killed the princes?
😆
Yes.
I always suspected as much
Will there be a recording of your live chat as I'm in Australia and sadly will be live in the middle of the night
The logic of Occam’s Razor gives credence to your reluctance to embrace the defence of Richard III as not being a child killer. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and assessments of material self-interest to suggest that Richard had blood on his hands. But then, so many rulers in that time period, as well as long before and long after then, had similar “damned spots” on their extremities.
But I would not be averse to DNA testing on those two skeletons. It would certainly be of historical interest. And if that would get more people interested in history, that wouldn’t be a bad outcome.
In the article in history extra. The chain of Edward v was found to be with lady Margaret Capell.Margaret was the sister in law of Tyrell. Man identified by More as the orchestrating of the prince's murder. Tyrell had confessed during imprisonment to killing them. He was Richard III right hand man. At the end of the article they say looks like Richard III is guilty. The Capells lawyer was John More, father of Thomas More. I won't write anymore in case you buy the magazine.
Is it possible to have DNA testing done with the current Monarchy? Would the Windsors prefer not to know if that is the princes? Would it effect the current monarch at all? Tracy from Pennsylvania.
I think sometimes we have a hard time facing the facts (which John Adams said, "are stubborn things.") I watched your documentary on the Princes, and it was really interesting to see how you looked at the documents and the discussions you had with the various historians, piecing things together. It showed me a whole new perspective on what happened.
I completely agree that this historical period should remain fake-news-free. If only all of time could also be so. Aside from our huge appetite for murder mysteries (which I myself love, I confess) I wonder if people find it too horrific to accept that a high profile, royal uncle would murder two innocent children and so would do much to try to prove that he didn’t.
A much needed breath of the fresh air of logic. Occam's razor argues that Richard III did it and until there is something other than wishful, unsubstaniated circumstantial evidence otherwise, that's the way to go.