Secrets of the Dead (PBS) - Who Were the Princes in the Tower?

[robinjojo]

For those interested in British history, Richard III, Henry VII and the controversy that has long surrounded the fate of the two princes, sons of Edward IV,  imprisoned in the Tower of London, here is the most recent episode covering this subject.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/who-were-the-princes-in-the-tower-6eabhg/7962/

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by robinjojo

[UkrainiiVityaz]

It is an amazing programme - and an intriguing mystery.  One topic avoided in the programme was the hold-up on validating that Prince Edward and Prince Richard actually survived could be easily verified by doing a DNA test on the remains of two young boys found behind a set of stairs in the Tower of London in 1674.  The bones were last examined in the 1930s and re-interred in Westminster Abbey and the two most recent British monarchs have not consented to having the remains tested to do a DNA sequence. 

Until the 1980s there was some belief by a few researchers that coins were issued in the name of Edward V - now it is believed that the coins so believed were actually issued during the reign of Edward IV.

[ominus1]

[ewomack]

The show was interesting, but I found the production really cheaply sensationalized. It felt like an intentionally over-dramatized reality show to me. It did contain interesting items, which may (key word being "may") provide evidence that the princes survived, which isn't a new theory, it's just never been proven. I kept wondering why all of these presented "smoking gun" documents, seemingly known to many people, hadn't surfaced before (or had they and been discounted?) and why the main researcher didn't choose to also have historians examine the documents and the evidence (I believe the secondary "skeptical" investigator worked specifically on legal documents?). My wife asked early into the program why they didn't discuss taking DNA samples from the remains found in the tower (also mentioned above). Getting permission to do that might be much harder than it sounds, but the show never mentioned that possibility. If the DNA matched, that would weigh the evidence towards the princes having been murdered in the tower. If they didn't match, it still wouldn't prove that the princes survived, but it would make the "survived" theory slightly more plausible, or at the very least not untenable. I believe they found a living descendant of Richard III to earlier verify the DNA of his remains, so presumably they could do something similar again? The show was definitely worth watching for those interested in the subject (I think I've watched 5 or 6 shows from various time periods on this topic), but I don't think it really proved anything all by itself. It more suggested an intriguing and potentially probable path to follow that likely still needs more research and verification..

[robinjojo]

2 hours ago, ominus1 said:

Yes, Shakespeare did a pretty good job villainizing Richard III.  However, he would have been in trouble with Elizabeth I if he were to do the opposite!

"Now is the winter of our discontent...." 

From Act one, Scene One

Richard of Gloucester

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up,
About a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.

Edited November 25, 2023 by robinjojo

[robinjojo]

49 minutes ago, ewomack said:

The show was interesting, but I found the production really cheaply sensationalized. It felt like an intentionally over-dramatized reality show to me. It did contain interesting items, which may (key word being "may") provide evidence that the princes survived, which isn't a new theory, it's just never been proven. I kept wondering why all of these presented "smoking gun" documents, seemingly known to many people, hadn't surfaced before (or had they and been discounted?) and why the main researcher didn't choose to also have historians examine the documents and the evidence (I believe the secondary "skeptical" investigator worked specifically on legal documents?). My wife asked early into the program why they didn't discuss taking DNA samples from the remains found in the tower (also mentioned above). Getting permission to do that might be much harder than it sounds, but the show never mentioned that possibility. If the DNA matched, that would weigh the evidence towards the princes having been murdered in the tower. If they didn't match, it still wouldn't prove that the princes survived, but it would make the "survived" theory slightly more plausible, or at the very least not untenable. I believe they found a living descendant of Richard III to earlier verify the DNA of his remains, so presumably they could do something similar again? The show was definitely worth watching for those interested in the subject (I think I've watched 5 or 6 shows from various time periods on this topic), but I don't think it really proved anything all by itself. It more suggested an intriguing and potentially probable path to follow that likely still needs more research and verification..

I agree.  There was definitely an element of reality TV in this production, which I think was not necessary.

[robinjojo]

For those of you who are interested in another perspective on Richard III, Secrets of the Dead aired an episode in 2014 that looks at the issue of his deformity.  Free viewing is not available now, so you'll need to pay to view it.

Resurrecting Richard III

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/resurrecting-richard-iii-preview/1896/

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by robinjojo

[UkrainiiVityaz]

4 hours ago, robinjojo said:

For those of you who are interested in another perspective on Richard III, Secrets of the Dead aired an episode in 2014 that looks at the issue of his deformity.  Free viewing is not available now, so you'll need to pay to view it.

Resurrecting Richard III

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/resurrecting-richard-iii-preview/1896/

 

 

$5 a month for PBS passport and unlimited viewing.  I don't have cable etc and don't otherwise watch TV - PBS is the exception.

[DonnaML]

11 hours ago, ominus1 said:

Who is that? It looks like Vincent Price to me, but he played Clarence in the 1939 movie "Tower of London." Loosely based upon, as they say.

[ominus1]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Who is that? It looks like Vincent Price to me, but he played Clarence in the 1939 movie "Tower of London." Loosely based upon, as they say.

..that's Vincent! 🙂