The New Murrey and Blue blog

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.