I definately don't believe that Richard III had his nephews killed. I think that they either died of natural causes or they were sent away to another country. ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-01
Let's see what evidence they've dug up for this one... Fascinating story. Plenty of people wanted them dead, so I think it was murder. Can anyone prove it was Richard though? ...
By dimestorecowboy. 2010-02-01
Who Knows, we will just have to wait and see ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-02
I think it's fairly well accepted that it that Richard III was involved isn't it? Will there be DNA testing of the bones?? ...
By foxtrot. 2010-02-03
I think it's fairly well accepted that it that Richard III was involved isn't it? Will there be DNA testing of the bones?? ...
By foxtrot. 2010-02-03
No, not its not commonly accepted that Richard III was involved. Most people think he is because of Shakespeare's play! You should take a look at the Richard III society website. I read something on their site that said HRH woun't release the bones for testing!. ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-04
I didn't know the royal family has prevented testing of the skeletons!! Why??? That may answer a lot of questions... ...
By Atlantic. 2010-02-04
I think we can safely assume it was Henry Tudor, like the show implies..... ...
By tylerdurden. 2010-02-04
I reckon it was Buckingham. He was unstable and started a rebellion against RIII... I think he saw the kings falling in the War of the Roses and realised he had a shot at the crown. And went for it. ...
By kingsroad. 2010-02-04
One of the reasons the Royal family won't allow the bones to be tested is because they don't have anything to DNA test the bones against. You would need to exhume another Royal, preferably from the female line to extract their DNA. The other reason is probably because they don't want us to find out that the bones in the urn aren't actually the Princes! ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-04
Really ????? I suppose yes that it is logical, whats the point testing bones if haven't got any DNA to test it against. ...
By Camelot2010. 2010-02-04
Surely they could at least test if they were related to the current royals, at least we would know if they were possibly the princes. Or perhaps there have been too many generations passed to be sure? Or perhaps that might open up a whole other kettle of fish to do with the royals current blood line and legitimacy... ...
By kingsroad. 2010-02-04
best programe of the series ........but then it was my sons who were the princes. love the series well done all. ...
By idomon. 2010-02-06
The producers are wrong to suggest in their summary that "as the news [of their disappearance] started to spread, cries of murder were heard across England." During extensive researches for my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" (see pages 152-155), I was able to find only one contemporaneous English document that claimed the boys were "put to silence" during Richard's reign (although it doesn't suggest by whom). All other surviving sources are either foreign or written during the reigns of the Tudors. ...
By Ricardian. 2010-05-20
Richard III had NO reasonto kill them... But Henry Tuder had EVERY reason. what happened in th 'Wars Of The Roses' could give us a clue. ...
By gundam146. 2010-06-29
I dont think the killer was richard because :
If Richard did kill the princes then he would be killing his own nephews! Richard could have killed them so they wouldn’t come into power, but he had no need to do that because he had already said that the princes were illegitimate. But Henry did have a reason because if he killed Richard then the princes would just come into power straight after, so he HAD to kill them. ...
By Berry Files . 2010-07-14
Good beginning comment above. Richard was never reported to have begrudged his nephews in any way. However, Edward V would now be king, and being the studious scholar that he was, could he now handle the upcoming agression by Tudor and France? I believe that Richard was very worried and had just spent the winter with his brother discussing what to do about the French issue. Putting them out of the way would be an obvious choice - but murder? Check out my new book 'To Know a Lion by His Claws' on the subject and entertain new theorizing to this famous mystery. Also, www.princesinthetower.com gives introductory information for curious historians to consider. ...
By mysterysolver. 2010-11-23
Sorry, Ricardian, but I don't follow.
Is there any reason to give a foreign report less weight than an English one? If anything, I should have thought the reverse, since those living sdafely abroad could speak without fear of reprsal, whether from Richard or Henry. ...
Princes in the Tower
Lets discuss Princes in the Tower
By MysteryFiles. 2010-02-01
Replies
I definately don't believe that Richard III had his nephews killed. I think that they either died of natural causes or they were sent away to another country. ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-01
Let's see what evidence they've dug up for this one... Fascinating story. Plenty of people wanted them dead, so I think it was murder. Can anyone prove it was Richard though? ...
By dimestorecowboy. 2010-02-01
Who Knows, we will just have to wait and see ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-02
I think it's fairly well accepted that it that Richard III was involved isn't it? Will there be DNA testing of the bones?? ...
By foxtrot. 2010-02-03
I think it's fairly well accepted that it that Richard III was involved isn't it? Will there be DNA testing of the bones?? ...
By foxtrot. 2010-02-03
No, not its not commonly accepted that Richard III was involved. Most people think he is because of Shakespeare's play! You should take a look at the Richard III society website. I read something on their site that said HRH woun't release the bones for testing!. ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-04
I didn't know the royal family has prevented testing of the skeletons!! Why??? That may answer a lot of questions... ...
By Atlantic. 2010-02-04
I think we can safely assume it was Henry Tudor, like the show implies..... ...
By tylerdurden. 2010-02-04
I reckon it was Buckingham. He was unstable and started a rebellion against RIII... I think he saw the kings falling in the War of the Roses and realised he had a shot at the crown. And went for it. ...
By kingsroad. 2010-02-04
One of the reasons the Royal family won't allow the bones to be tested is because they don't have anything to DNA test the bones against. You would need to exhume another Royal, preferably from the female line to extract their DNA. The other reason is probably because they don't want us to find out that the bones in the urn aren't actually the Princes! ...
By MysteryObsessed. 2010-02-04
Really ????? I suppose yes that it is logical, whats the point testing bones if haven't got any DNA to test it against. ...
By Camelot2010. 2010-02-04
Surely they could at least test if they were related to the current royals, at least we would know if they were possibly the princes. Or perhaps there have been too many generations passed to be sure? Or perhaps that might open up a whole other kettle of fish to do with the royals current blood line and legitimacy... ...
By kingsroad. 2010-02-04
best programe of the series ........but then it was my sons who were the princes. love the series well done all. ...
By idomon. 2010-02-06
The producers are wrong to suggest in their summary that "as the news [of their disappearance] started to spread, cries of murder were heard across England." During extensive researches for my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" (see pages 152-155), I was able to find only one contemporaneous English document that claimed the boys were "put to silence" during Richard's reign (although it doesn't suggest by whom). All other surviving sources are either foreign or written during the reigns of the Tudors. ...
By Ricardian. 2010-05-20
Richard III had NO reasonto kill them... But Henry Tuder had EVERY reason. what happened in th 'Wars Of The Roses' could give us a clue. ...
By gundam146. 2010-06-29
I dont think the killer was richard because : If Richard did kill the princes then he would be killing his own nephews! Richard could have killed them so they wouldn’t come into power, but he had no need to do that because he had already said that the princes were illegitimate. But Henry did have a reason because if he killed Richard then the princes would just come into power straight after, so he HAD to kill them. ...
By Berry Files . 2010-07-14
Good beginning comment above. Richard was never reported to have begrudged his nephews in any way. However, Edward V would now be king, and being the studious scholar that he was, could he now handle the upcoming agression by Tudor and France? I believe that Richard was very worried and had just spent the winter with his brother discussing what to do about the French issue. Putting them out of the way would be an obvious choice - but murder? Check out my new book 'To Know a Lion by His Claws' on the subject and entertain new theorizing to this famous mystery. Also, www.princesinthetower.com gives introductory information for curious historians to consider. ...
By mysterysolver. 2010-11-23
Sorry, Ricardian, but I don't follow. Is there any reason to give a foreign report less weight than an English one? If anything, I should have thought the reverse, since those living sdafely abroad could speak without fear of reprsal, whether from Richard or Henry. ...
By Mikestone. 2011-07-14
Leave a comment