|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 16, 2023 12:51:40 GMT
www.channel4.com/press/news/channel-4-shed-new-light-mystery-disappeared-princesPhilippa Langley (Richard III - in car park), has a new documentary on Saturday night. As part of the Lost Princes Project they have been visiting courts and other archives in Europe to see if they can find anything in their archives relating to what happened. I think Judge Rinder is there to say whether or not this would be legal evidence or sufficient for an arrest, or to titillate the things who knows. I have know idea what they have found but she describes it as a smoking gun. Could be completely naff but she does do serious research. I think this has been several years in the making. All it would take is one letter from an ambassador to his King/Duke? saying something like "I have it on good authority that King Richard has sent his nephews to join the church in York" and the cat is amongst the pigeons. Or a different letter say "King Henry 7th located the sons of Edward in an Abbey near Lincoln and had them imprisoned there". The probably have less than that to be fair, because otherwise someone would have leaked it wouldn't they. Lots of people have suggested this because joining the church was the typical use for 'bastard' sons and as they were still children would not have been seen as a bad move. Mind you I've always thought Perkin Warbeck was a good shout.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 18, 2023 22:05:52 GMT
Well that was good and it will change history. Nice to see some very credible historians backing it up too.
|
|
|
|
Post by linseed on Nov 18, 2023 22:16:10 GMT
Yes, I enjoyed that too, and the evidence unearthed seems very compelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 18, 2023 22:33:05 GMT
It was. Of course it doesn't prove that these people weren't imposters. I didn't know, for instance that Lambert Simnel was not called this until his capture or the point about all these people supporting a 10 yrar old boy.I also did not know the same about Perkin Warbeck.
I did know that Warbeck lived for some time at court and was able to have his wife with him. That he ate in the banqueting hall, met people, danced and socialised etc. It was only when he made a break for freedom that he was put in the Tower.
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Nov 19, 2023 13:34:33 GMT
Well I’ve only just started but it’s already a winner for me as it features Tracy Borman and Janina Ramirez.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Nov 19, 2023 14:46:12 GMT
I'm curious to know why the two independent experts whose view was that the final document examined, the first person account of the younger brother Richard's (aka Perkin Warbeck) life, was accurate, were not identified. If they were sure, why would they not wish to be named? That struck me as odd. And they were not stating that it was actually Richard's truthful account but that it was contemporary and that the events it described did happen. So someone who may or may not have been Richard was captured, taken to the castle, escaped, was recaptured and executed. Given that portrait painting at the time was far from accurate and Richard was not previously known to them, could they be sure it was him?
Phillipa Langley's persistent use of emotive language – everything is mind-blowing, incredible, shocking etc – doesn't help her be taken seriously by the academic community. However, the existence of these documents will certainly add to the mix and well done to her for her dogged determination.
Thomas More has a lot to answer for!
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Nov 19, 2023 15:12:34 GMT
The lady from the Gelders Institute didn’t identify the first expert but did say he was from that institution. The second chap was Andrew Dunning from the Bodleian. I did think it was rather late in the day for a watermark to be uncovered. I’m sure Janina would have been interested that it existed and was the type used in the period.
I have to say that whatever the truth of it all, and you don’t know 100% for sure that the boys who presented themselves were the actual princes, didn’t her team do well to come up with three original documents buried in archives across Europe? I am not totally convinced that Margaret of Burgundy, for example, would know exactly what her nephews looked like so she could have been duped.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Nov 19, 2023 15:33:55 GMT
Ah, I took Rob to mean that he had consulted two other experts, didn't pick up that he meant those two. Thanks for clarifying.
It does seem unlikely that both boys would be imposters, but then there was all sorts of skulduggery going on at the time. I thought the document relying on birthmarks was a bit iffy but they were convinced by it.
If the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie was not corroborated by firm evidence of the time, no one would believe that. History is littered with unlikely tales and as they kept stressing, history is written by the victors. Interesting that Her Maj would not allow DNA testing of the children's skeletons found in the Tower!
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 19, 2023 20:18:13 GMT
They confirmed the documents were authentic. They didn't confirm that what the 'story' document was the truth.
However it has always puzzled historians as to why Henry VII had Richard/Lambert's face disfigured before hid execution. You have to say that if he did have two birthmarks on his face, one on the cheek and the other by his eye, then this explains it.
People would know this at the time, his family, contemporaries would be well aware that he had these marks. He uses them to identify himself around Europe. I think that is quite telling.
|
|
Anymore to come?
