People at the time certainly thought they had been murdered, and neither Richard nor his successors ever did anything to contradict that. Apparently even Richard III said at some point that his nephews had been murdered.
Could you give a cite for that? From everything I’ve read, the rumour of their deaths was very sparse during Richard’s lifetime; it only became general knowledge after Henry took over. I’ve never heard of Richard mentioning it.
That’s the main thing that makes me think it probably wasn’t Richard. If he killed them, it was to make sure they couldn’t become a focus for rebellion, so he would’ve needed to make sure absolutely everyone knew they were good and dead: announce their deaths from fever or whatever, hold a big state funeral. (This would also have had the advantage of scaring off any other possible claimants.) Secretly vanishing them wouldn’t have done him any good - and there was no reason why he should be secretive about it. Henry, on the other hand, would have needed them to vanish as unobtrusively as possible.
I did read Bradford’s work and conclusion that the older child (if he was Edward, which I think he probably was) was too young to have made it to Henry’s reign, but I wasn’t convinced. I can’t remember the details of why - I read it years ago - but part of it was that I’ve read other dental experts (not related to this case) saying that it’s very difficult to say with any degree of certainty that a skeleton comes from a twelve-year-old rather than a fourteen-year-old. You can say it’s likely, but individual rates of development rule out certainty about such a small window.
Quite the contrary, he had every reason to keep it quiet. To quote:
…The rebellion of 1483 began as a movement to restore Edward V to his rightful throne. For Richard to have produced Edward V and his brother alive and well at this stage would have been no advantage to him. Once the rebellion turned into a rising which assumed that the princes were dead, Richard’s failure to prove that they were alive seems very striking. He was, in fact, in a cleft stick. The princes alive were dangerous. The princes dead were a source of opprobrium and the belief that they were dead fueled the fire of any other claimant to the throne…
From Richard III by Charles Ross ( 1981, University of California Press ). Ross also claims that Continental opinion that the princes were dead by the summer of 1483 was widespread ( he cites to others on that matter ).
Looking again, it’s kind of indirect: per Wikipedia, Holinshed wrote that Richard III denied being responsible for the murders- and Holinshed did use the word “murder.” But that’s a report long after the fact. And Tamerlane makes a good point that maybe there was no advantage for Richard to prove they were alive or dead.
Ok, other than finding bones all curvy is there any other way to tell how bad the scoliosis was? when I looked at the individual spine bones it looks like someone just set them down in a curved way to simulate what a curved spine might look like.
Isn’t that what the scoliosis is? If they were just ‘found’ all curvy and were not naturally shaped that way, I would think they could be straightened out. It’s not a fossil.
I find it a bit suspicious that the reconstruction looks so much like the official portrait (and they pretty clearly took the headgear from that portrait).
I suspect that, where things were unsure or doubtful, they erred in favor of the portrait.
If they were on the metric system at the time, it would have been caught. “Hey boss, we have a couple extra feet here!”
She is, and it does make her sound like a nut. Doubly so if you read a more complete quote:
Was ever woman in this humor woo’d? Was ever woman in this humor won?
[QUOTE=King Duncan]
There’s no art/
To find the mind’s construction in the face
[/QUOTE]
Oh, wait, that’s more Tudor propaganda. 
Pretty classy for a Mod.
What will be built over your remains in 500 years time ? Or mine ?
I’ve found one can piss off unrespectful archaeologists by reminding them that one day their bones may be dug up by future archaeologists; but really there is nothing so unimportant as what happens to our bodies after death. No one is diminished by ill-treatment — or fleeting, changeable, opinion — of any kind post hoc.
And as a jacobite I couldn’t care about either Richard or Henry, except that the Head of the House of Stuart is thus also Head of both of their Houses ( and several others ) in true Last Man Standing style.
A house of ill repute and a bar.
The BBC article claims that the facial reconstruction was done without reference to any portraits, with them only being used later to fill in the bits that the remains wouldn’t show, like hair and eye colour. And there are some significant differences to the portraits.
If they aren’t the princes, who else *could *they be?
That sounds like a rehash of the theory that Edward II didn’t die, he was sekritly released by Roger Mortimer and spent the rest of his days in obscurity in England. A pretty fable that makes people feel better for believing it – after all, who wants to imagine two pre-teen boys being murdered in their beds?
Richard III had the motive, opportunity, and ability. Alive, no matter how bastardized, they would always be threats. Edward V wasn’t far off from being, by medieval standards, a grown adult, and he’d be an obvious choice for any disaffected nobles or rebels to flock around. Releasing the Princes to the continent would put them in the hands of any number of meddlesome European powers who could, at any time, cause no end of trouble by putting an army at their backs and sending them to England to try to seize the throne. If you’re a medieval monarch who wants to destabilize a neighboring kingdom, getting your hands on a disgruntled exile prince is a great way to do it. Not only will they raise all sorts of hell, if they succeed you will have reason to expect them to be grateful to you for your assistance one day.
Medieval history was full of cautionary tales. William Clito, always a thorn in his uncle Henry I’s side, until his early death. Arthur of Brittany for his uncle King John, ditto. Álmos of Hungary, who proved so dangerous to his brother, king Kálmán, that Kálmán had him and his young son blinded. Borisz, the son of that same Kálmán’s disgraced queen, who invaded Hungary several times trying to prove his rights. Alexios III, who usurped his brother’s throne and a few years later woke up to find his nephew before the walls of Constantinople, with the Fourth Crusade at his back.
Now, I’m willing to entertain the notion that R3 didn’t have the Princes killed. It’s possible somebody else killed 'em, thinking they were doing R3 a favor. It’s even possible that they died natural deaths (conveniently). Hell, I’m sure Henry Tudor would’ve had them whacked, if they’d been alive for him to do it. But I highly doubt they lived that long.
I am somewhat boggled that there is a society dedicated, not to the English monarchy, nor the medieval English monarchy, but to a specific English monarch. Do other kings have fan clubs? Is there a William Rufus Society? George II? Dueling Stephen and Matilda Societies?
The William V Adoration Society, of course, is flourishing and comprises pretty much the entire population of the U.K. and the U.S.
Are these Richard III people history buffs, or crackpots a la the Bacon-was-Shakespeare crowd?
Yes.
And I once read of a German society dedicated to Ludwig II of Bavaria, who built castles.
How strange.
Mostly history buffs who unaccountably admire that usurper.
“My kingdom for a parking spot!”
This Misterious Circumstances seem to be a comunicable disease. Have they found a cure?
I’m waiting for the sign: “Richard III-hour parking.”