- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
Who do YOU think did it? How had the means motive and opportunity to commit one of our most famous unsolved murders? Place your vote and make your comment
8¬)
8¬)
Blueswidow said:Hmmmmm, Richard he had the most to gain.
Dr Phibes said:It was a Scottish culprit, possibly with ties to the Knights Templar, in order to cause political chaos in England.
carole said:Richad as the evil uncle was all Tudor conspiracy, I tell you!
Carole
New study strengthens claims Richard III murdered 'the Princes in the Tower
King Richard III's involvement in one of the most notorious and emotive mysteries in English history may be a step closer to being confirmed following a new study by Professor Tim Thornton of the University of Huddersfield. ...
Defenders of Richard III have pointed to a lack of hard evidence to connect the king to the disappearance of the princes, who were aged just 12 and 9 when Richard took the throne in June 1483. But in 'More on a Murder' for History, the Journal of the Historical Association, Professor Thornton says that there is now clear evidence to substantiate the allegations against the men identified as the boys' murderers, and to connect them to Richard III.
Integral to this is the 'History of King Richard III' by Sir Thomas More, the first detailed account of the deaths of the princes. More named two men, Miles Forest and John Dighton, as the murderers. More claimed that they were recruited by Sir James Tyrell, a servant of Richard III at his orders.
Until now, many people have questioned this story as being written long after the event, as 'Tudor propaganda' to blacken the name of a dead king, and even suggested that the names of the alleged murderers were made up by More. ...
But Professor Thornton believes that More came to the right conclusion due to some inside knowledge. Two of the famed politician and philosopher's fellow courtiers were the sons of Miles Forest, one of the men More named as having killed the princes. ...
I have seen several programmes where they have considered natural causes. Apparently, one of the princes had a track record of poor health and doctor's visits whilst in the Tower, and I think TB was speculated upon. With the bodies having to be quietly buried because otherwise there would be accusations of murder...That's it. Blame us for everything. Damn sasenachs.
But seriously. I don't know enough about the conspiracy to vote but I can't help ask if anyone's considered natural causes. Medicine was a lot more primative back then and the Tower was damp and poorly heated.
Cujo
That sort of backfired lolI have seen several programmes where they have considered natural causes. Apparently, one of the princes had a track record of poor health and doctor's visits whilst in the Tower, and I think TB was speculated upon. With the bodies having to be quietly buried because otherwise there would be accusations of murder...
My firm belief is that Richard III was absolutely guilty of murdering, or I should say ordering the murder of, the two young princes.....but even if he wasn’t then at the very least he was a pretty shitty uncle!
That was essentially a lifestyle choice back then. Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk probably wins the worst uncle award.
He pretty much helped throw Ann and her brother George Boylean under the bus and wasn't too much help with his other niece Catherine Howard either.
Life was extremely cheap then even if you were in a privileged position.
They always sound like anagram competition entries to me.Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck
I hear that Simnel was a bit of a fruitcake.They always sound like anagram competition entries to me.
Fascinating findings. The Devon village of Coldridge:Richard III may not have killed young princes in the Tower of London, researchers say
King Richard III may not have killed the young 'Princes in the Tower' more than 500 years ago but instead allowed the older boy, Edward V, to live in secret under a false name in a rural Devon village, researchers have said.
They believe Edward's mother made a secret pact with Richard III, who historians have always thought murdered his nephews so he could claim the throne for himself in the 15th century.
A narrative handed down by Tudor authorities and popularised by William Shakespeare suggested that the king had the brothers murdered, just in case anyone tried to dispute his power and seek to put Edward on the throne.
But despite a pair of skeletons being found in the Tower in 1674, 200 years after their supposed death, no evidence of Edward and Richard's murder has ever been discovered — and now researchers believe a series of 'Da Vinci Code'-style clues suggest it may be because they were never killed.
The findings are part of the Missing Princes Project, led by Philippa Langley, the historian responsible for a dig that found the remains of Richard III in a Leicester car park in 2012.
Langley and colleagues followed a paper trail including medieval documents that led them to Coldridge, where royal Yorkist symbols are carved into the local church.
The findings hint at a secret deal struck between the boys' mother and Richard III, that allowed Edward V to live his life under the fake name 'John Evans'.
In the church there is an effigy of 'John Evans' gazing directly at a stained glass window that depicts Edward V, suggesting they were one and the same person.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...OCENT-Princes-Tower-murders-study-claims.html
maximus otter
Whilst studying for my degree I had to become familiar with academic journals for referencing purposes. It quickly became apparent that academics are rarely named 'Smith' or 'Jones' but more likely 'Simnel' and 'Warbeck', I feel this is probably rooted in our class system whereby only the wealthy families with surnames derived from the aristocracy would receive an education and not those from working class backgrounds (and thus working class surnames).They always sound like anagram competition entries to me
There's a whole PhD in that.Whilst studying for my degree I had to become familiar with academic journals for referencing purposes. It quickly became apparent that academics are rarely named 'Smith' or 'Jones' but more likely 'Simnel' and 'Warbeck', I feel this is probably rooted in our class system whereby only the wealthy families with surnames derived from the aristocracy would receive an education and not those from working class backgrounds (and thus working class surnames).