Everyone knows about Leslau and his theories concerning the Hans Holbein portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family. In Leslau’s opinion, the portrait reveals much about the fates of the “Princes in the Tower”. Another Holbein painting, “The Ambassadors” is also filled with secret messages. Or so it is said. I cannot argue one way or another, because I do not know.

Now it seems there are similar mysteries to be solved in the National Portrait Gallery of Richard III. The hands/rings are crafted to expose cryptic clues and give answers concerning his supposed involvement in the deaths of the same two boys mentioned in regard to the More portrait above.

If you follow this link:-

http://www.holbeinartworks.org/efaqssevenkrichardiiitwentyone.htm you will come to a long article (some 70 pages in all) about Richard III. It details Richard’s activities from early on, for instance, when still Duke of Gloucester, he would not accept a French bribe. It dissects the likes of Commynes and Mancini, revealing how the use of invisible ink (probably lemon juice) added information for certain  eyes only, almost like a 15th-century le Carré. And at the centre of it all is Richard, plotted against and lied about, his fault being to “underestimate his enemies and overestimate his friends”. His fate being to be innocent, yet proven guilty by his self-interested foes, especially the French and Henry VII, often working in unison.

So here we go into the pages of ENIGMAS: THE PRINCES AND THE KING: RICHARD III, which commences:-

“#1. “Apart from the Holbein evidence, does “new” documentary evidence exonerate Richard III from the charge of having murdered his two nephews?” 

“Apart from the Holbein allegations, you ask if “new” documentary evidence exonerates Richard III from the charge of having murdered Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. The short answer is ‘No’. However, if DNA findings are positive it means that new evidence can be added to old evidence that will exonerate Richard III for all time. In the event, we will request further instructions from the inquiry. For the present, we continue to test ALL evidence by NIET criteria. The aim and objective is to plan on paper and build on rock.

“To this end, I offer for the first time some seventy or more pages of abstracts from the files of new NIET positive and negative evidence entitled The Princes and the King : Richard III. The pages are divided in ‘Parts’, 1 through 8.”

Given the length and depth of all this, I trust you will forgive me for not attempting to go into great detail.

This link gives more details concerning the NPG portrait, and in particular the configuration of Richard’s fingers and rings.

I will not spoil it all by revealing too much here, but suggest that if you don’t know about all this already, then an hour or so spent delving through the articles will be rather rewarding. Even if you end up pooh-poohing the whole thing.

Whether one believes such theories or not, unravelling them is fascinating, and always—always—there are some points that have enough ring of truth about them to get us wondering if there’s something in it after all.  Please excuse the awful pun.


Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. Fascinating though not sure who the author is. Is it Leslau?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think it has to be, although nothing is actually stated. The references at the end are all to Leslau works, so it’s the conclusion I draw.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I haven’t read it all, but part of it refers to the disappearance of a document realting to the marriage of Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot. Having just read John Ashdown Hill’s ‘Royal Marriage Secrets’ book, he makes it clear that marriages were not documented in those days, presumably especially not secret ones!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Perhaps Edward IV wrote to Stillington and told him NOT to record the marriage in his personal diary!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Perhaps, but I am certain he (E IV) didn’t put it into writing!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. viscountessw Avatar
    viscountessw

    Hardly. That’s the point. But then again, he was daft enough to marry bigamously, so who knows how far his daftness went? Apart from into his codpiece, that is.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. […] John Clement, however, can be located more easily in the same town. According to Jack Leslau, Clement was actually Richard, who had been Duke of York until his father’s bigamy was […]

    Like

  5. […] medieval king. ‘Richard III: Coming Home’ will highlight an iconic portrait of the king from the National Portrait Gallery, alongside star objects from the Yorkshire Museum’s own collections – including the […]

    Like

  6. […] going on display at the Yorkshire Museum is the Middleham Jewel (see above). Of course, the National Portrait Gallery painting of Richard III (see below) is also going on display, because Yorkshire has a great […]

    Like

  7. […] prefer more flattering portraits that show him as he really was. There is one portrait in the National Portrait Gallery (above) that is perhaps the most famous one of him…and the Tudors set to work with subtle […]

    Like

  8. […] no life in it, if you know what I mean. The other most well-known picture of him is, of course, the National Portrait Gallery portrait. This in turn is often shown as the Tudor version, in which his face has been deliberately […]

    Like

Leave a reply to The Middleham Jewel and Richard III…. – murreyandblue Cancel reply