The New Murrey and Blue blog

Richard and that pesky urn….!

,
, ,

Damned Urn

http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/history-facts-tower-london-anne-boleyn-guy-fawkes-princes
Here is an extract from the above article. It concerns the so-called Princes in the Tower.:-
“Charles II eventually arranged for their reburial in Westminster Abbey. They lie there still, with a brief interruption in 1933 when a re-examination provided compelling evidence that they were the two princes. The controversy surrounding their death was reignited by the discovery of Richard III’s skeleton in Leicester in 2012 and shows no sign of abating.”
Erm, excuse me? What compelling evidence????? There was also compelling evidence of animal bones, which has to prove that the boys had hooves, tails and horns! More backward steps. The edge of the world looms ever nearer…..

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. hoodedman1 Avatar
    hoodedman1

    No compelling evidence at all, tbh. If they were found in an area where humans had never had habitation before–then maybe. But the Tower is on earlier sites, some over 2000 years old. Bones turn up all over Britain, everywhere, including at the tower. They are not the only children ever found there! They can’t all be the ‘princes.’
    If they had a carbon date, then perhaps–but there was no way of dating remains in 1933. They remain of unknown age, but at such a depth could well be prehistoric.
    If they were both definitely male, again, then maybe. But osteologists of the 30’s did not have the expertise to definitively sex pubescent/pre-pubescent skeletons. Even today, when technology has advanced and the predictions are pretty accurate, they normally describe children/young adults bones simply as ‘juveniles’ unless they can back up the sex with dna.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  2. McArthur, Richard P. Avatar
    McArthur, Richard P.

    In 1933 Tanner and Wright went on the assumption that the skeletons were male. Examination seemed to support the attribution of ages as 13 and 10; the ages of Edward V and Richard of York. So, it was decided these are their skeletons.

    Nowadays, the assumption of maleness is viewed askance; the ages are not so seriously challenged, but are challenged.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment