Considering that the events were as long ago as they are, and involve a monarch and a usurper of monarchy, in another country, I’ve often been surprised at the passion the topic can arouse. The facts emerged many years ago when the sole surviving copy of the Titulus Regius emerged, showing that Richard III was legally made king and the reason for it; simultaneously it showed why Henry VII had the rest of the copies destroyed and the “little princes” murdered, then married their sister and pinned the murder on his predecessor, who had absolutely zero motive.
The supposed remains of the little princes which were found during a renovation of The Tower (usually the account sez the bodies were found under some stairs, the truth is they were excavated while a foundation was being either laid or removed) probably were not the boys, although DNA testing might be just the thing needed. The measurements of the skeletons made in the early 20th century showed that the remains were too large for the boys if they had indeed died during the reign of Richard III. The identification was never rejected, and they were reinterred.
It’s clear that the bodies were somewhere, because Henry VII had the supposed murderer executed for the crime, after confessing that he’d done it on orders from Richard III — which was someone for whom he’d never worked. I really have to hand it to VIIth — he really knew how to pull it off. Naturally he has the unfailing support of all his successors, irrespective of their descent, because without him, not even one of them would likely have sat the throne. :’)
The REAL heir to the throne of England lives in Australia.
Thank you for that information. Your conclusions seem quite logical.
I must say that I really had not given Richard III much thought until the discovery pf his remains. As I said, Shakespeare’s portrayal has been my main image of him over the years. And it has been many, many years since I read that.
Any recommendations on the book that tells the story?