https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princes-in-the-tower-history-richard-iii-edward-v-b2757443.html
Over to to you lot for discussion... :)
I'm not sure this moves us much further in the way of proof, though it's always good to see new evidence has been found.
I sent the link to my daughter who has always had an interest in the period.
Her reply rather sums up my opinion
Her "evidence" has been things that that have been known for centuries
We know that various powers supported the Yorkist pretenders
That doesn't prove anything
Claiming that BOTH extremely unlikely pretenders were actually the two princes in the tower is an incredible stretch though
I must admit I'm left wondering whether the author or source were members of the Richard IIIrd society?
;D
I'd certainly agree with Jim's daughter. But we only have a newspaper report. They may be failing to realise a lot of what she is saying is well known and her emphasis would be on her "new evidence". Unfortunately, if she had found anything really significant, it would have been a news item in its own right.
I would agree. Nothing here is new or definitive proof and the emphasis is on a wish for it to be true. Unfortunately for Phillipa, zealot belief does not make it so.
I knew it would be slightly contentious :P
Quote from: Imperial Dave on May 26, 2025, 11:55 AMI knew it would be slightly contentious
I would suggest more sad that her preconceptions seem to have clouded her historian's critical faculties.
Quote from: Imperial Dave on May 26, 2025, 11:55 AMI knew it would be slightly contentious :P
I don't actually think it's contentious, just a small group of true believers pushing their barrow around looking for attention to justify their belief.
I've seen the same with Ripperologists or come to think of it Arthurians