The 'Princes' skeletons of 1483: why no scientific DNA testing?

[Electerrific 14]

And the anti-Plantagenet propaganda, from the Tudor era, painting Richard III as a super-villain, didn't help.

 

I recently read an Alison Weir book called "The Princes In The Tower" which put forward a similar idea to Philippa Gregory's, that it was Buckingham "wot done it".

Or Margaret Beaufort or Anne Neville (suggested in The White Queen, phillipa Gregory's book)?

 

But if Buckingham did it, would that absolve Richard personally? From murder, yes, but as the nephews were under his care, they were his responsibility?

[Glamrocker 10]

Ought to do a poll on SF to find the culprit ..my moneys on Tommy Robinson by a landslide

[cressida 1,565]

There was also a book called 'Daughter of Time' about a guy who was in hospital and to pass the time he decided to spend it investigating whether Richard was guilty.

 

I think he decided that the princes were sent over to Richard's sister, Margaret of Burgundy - after all they were still Edward IV's sons and therefore kin.

[Twiglet 10]

That's the point though, isn't it? Permission to look at the skeletons has been denied consistently, so whatever we decide about testing is conjecture.

 

Who knows? Maybe they are in perfect condition and were mummified in a sterile atmosphere to reduce bacterial actions on the bodies and preserve their remains for thousands of years? If the scientists are refused permission to examine them then we'll never know, will we?

 

The bones were examined in 1933 so there is a fairly accurate record of what was there are the time and what condition it was in

 

The remains are buried in a marked grave on consecrated ground. To go disturbing any grave purely for the sake of curiosity and/or for scientific research (unless of specific benefit to the living) is completely unethical. In general, this sort of examination is only carried out when remains are being disturbed due to development etc.

 

Digging up 'Richard III' was not the primary target of that particular archaeological excavation, which was to investigate the site of Greyfriars, knowing that it was possible they might come across remains. There still hasn't been any published peer reviewed scientific evidence that the remains really are those of Richard III.

[MrsMozzy 10]

There was also a book called 'Daughter of Time' about a guy who was in hospital and to pass the time he decided to spend it investigating whether Richard was guilty.

 

I think he decided that the princes were sent over to Richard's sister, Margaret of Burgundy - after all they were still Edward IV's sons and therefore kin.

 

I thought he concluded that it was Buckingham too. That was a fantastic book, by the way. Well worth a read.

[Electerrific 14]

Interestingly, in The White Queen shown this year, there was this error. In the fourth episode, a seated Earl Warwick is arguing with Prince George of Clarence about the succession, behind him carved on the ornate wooden chair is the year that the chair is presumably made. But is it 'made' before the show is set?

 

http://www.imagebam.com/image/3cef54284945605

http://www.imagebam.com/image/289133284945614

 

It shows 1_89 clearly, the lower section of the second digit is certainly a 'full' loop (a '6' or more likely an '8'??) but the upper section, which appears to have once been a circular digit, is missing (maybe chipped off with wear).

 

The digit could only fully read a possible 1689 or 1889, which is impossible given this show is set in the late 1460's or early 1470's?

[jfish1936 10]

Digging up 'Richard III' was not the primary target of that particular archaeological excavation, which was to investigate the site of Greyfriars, knowing that it was possible they might come across remains. There still hasn't been any published peer reviewed scientific evidence that the remains really are those of Richard III.

 

How long does peer reviewed publication take?

I've seen it take considerable time to get through the processes.

[Plain Talker 11]

Interestingly, in The White Queen shown this year, there was this error. In the fourth episode, a seated Earl Warwick is arguing with Prince George of Clarence about the succession, behind him carved on the ornate wooden chair is the year that the chair is presumably made. But is it 'made' before the show is set?

 

http://www.imagebam.com/image/3cef54284945605

http://www.imagebam.com/image/289133284945614

 

It shows 1_89 clearly, the lower section of the second digit is certainly a 'full' loop (a '6' or more likely an '8'??) but the upper section, which appears to have once been a circular digit, is missing (maybe chipped off with wear).

 

The digit could only fully read a possible 1689 or 1889, which is impossible given this show is set in the late 1460's or early 1470's?

 

Within the series, "The White Queen", there were many gaffes of that vein, such as the fairly modern wrought iron railings on the bridge over the moat of the castle.

 

There were, I've been told, zip fasteners in some of the costumes, when the Zip was only invented about a hundred years ago. (unusually for me, I didn't notice them!)

 

There were modern metal drainpipes on the castle walls, and the cast were not quite grubby enough for the time.

[Electerrific 14]

Yes, budgetary constraints and/or rushed production, I presume?

[Twiglet 10]

How long does peer reviewed publication take?

I've seen it take considerable time to get through the processes.

 

As little as a few weeks from acceptance now that we have online release of in press articles and edited manuscripts.

 

Regardless of how long it takes, it's premature to be discussing burial locations and huge amounts of taxpayers money before any evidence has been seen by anyone outside those who have a vested interest in the outcomes of the project. Saying 'beyond reasonable doubt' on a Channel 4 documentary does not a king make. I very much doubt it would meet evidential standards...