Traditionalist views
In 1933 two doctors examined the bones discovered in 1674. The report said:
The skeletons were not complete. The bones belonged to two children aged about 10 and 12. A stain on one of the skulls may mean they could have been suffocated. The bones could have been there since 1100. The elder boy had a serious tooth disease.
***
Though Richard declared they had no right to the throne, if they were alive people would still be able to lead rebellions against him.
***
The executions of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan without trial showed Richard's ruthlessness.
***
Though murdering the princes would have damaged his reputation Richard may have panicked and acted quickly.
***
Sir James Tyrell admitted murdering the princes on Richard's orders by suffocating them. However, Tyrell's confession may not be trustworthy as he also claimed the princes were smuggled abroad.
Revisionist views
Richard, Duke of Gloucester had always been extremely loyal to Edward IV, why would he murder his sons?
***
In 1955 other doctors looked at the report made in 1933, They were not allowed to look at the bones but studied pictures instead. They said that:
'The bones were from two children younger than the princes. The stain was not caused by suffocation.'
***
Richard had no reason to kill them. However, Henry Tudor had every reason. Henry was capable of such a crime, so they were quietly murdered.
***
There were many rumours at the time, some claimed that the two boys had fallen off a bridge. Other said that Prince Edward had become ill and died naturally and Prince Richard was secretly taken abroad.
No comments:
Post a Comment