murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Oh dear

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-princes-in-the-tower-54459

Where do I start?

“Richard was appointed to look after the children …” – which part of “Lord Protector and Defender OF THE REALM” does the writer not understand? Their maternal family, as was customary, was appointed to “look after” them. Carson’s latest book quotes the National Archives verbatim to demonstrate this point.

“Richard took the throne …” – no, it was OFFERED to him by the “Three Estates”, the nearest thing there could be to a Parliament until a King was crowned, on evidence from a witness to Edward IV’s bigamy that was quoted fifty years later by the Imperial Ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, despite the cover-up that followed immediately after Bosworth.

“Most historians have agreed that the motivations for Richard killing the boys are more likely than any other theory” – not those who have objectively analysed the evidence by the standards of modern science.

As for the remains, we addressed this just a few days ago in https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/the-seven-princes-in-the-tower/. Perhaps Edward IV was even more prolific than we thought in the sons he had by his mistress Elizabeth Woodville?

With Richard’s Y-chromosome now being confirmed, because the mtDNA of the same body helped to prove his identity, anyone who obtains permission to examine the contents of the urn could prove whether it contains the ex-Princes or not.

This “Royal Central” piece requires further improvement.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

One thought on “Oh dear

  1. You can leave a comment under the article. I just wrote a lengthy comment about the article and posted it there, pointing out some of the same things and a few others.

    On another note, I won’t ever call Elizabeth Woodville Edward’s “mistress”, since that’s not what she was, regardless of the legality of their marriage. Her status was clearly different from that of a mistress; there are other ways to point out Edward was (most likely) a bigamist. Maybe one could call her a common law wife (even if they did not have such a concept established in medieval England).

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: