Talk:Princes in the Tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reference to the United States Supreme Court seems Anachronistic, Americo-centric and totally out of place. Mintguy 14:54 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

The statement that "in fact, such a promise was enforceable in many states of the U.S., and in some of them "breach of promise" to marry was a crime, until the late 20th century" seems similarly irrelevant. It should be replaced by some statement about mediaeval English law, but I know nothing about that subject myself, so I'll leave it for now. Does anyone else have any ideas? -- Oliver PEREIRA 23:44 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Richard did it"? 2 Sources 3 "Taken from..."? 4 Expansion of the article 5 Thomas More 6 Suspects

[edit] "Richard did it"?

"Although this issue has generated, and continues to generate, a good deal of debate, the view of most professional historians is that Richard did it."

I would like a comparison showing how many professional historians believe that, versus how many believe we do not have enough evidence to make more than an educated guess. I would also like more explanation on the "if the recovered bones were the princes, they died before Bosworth" part that was added in the same edit. DanielCristofani 13:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Or even the names of a few who have come down on one side of the other. There seem to be a number of overlapping articles in Wikipedia which cover this topic. The Richard III of England article has quite a reference list and notes fiction such as Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time book which I think may have done a lot to raise questions about Richard's involvement. (I have that book and can give it a quick skim to see which sources she uses.) But I think perhaps going through some of the reference list on the main Richard page would be useful to see who claims and suggests what.

Whilst I'm here, some justification for the fifth "suspect" would be worth adding, because it looks very strange to me. Failing that, should it even stay? The entire sentence is Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort, as Henry Stafford visited the Beaufort Castle earlier that year, and was possibly bribed to kill the princes. My first thought on reading it was that it meant that she visited the place as Henry Stafford, but then sanity returned. Seriously, though: what relation are the two to each other and why does the possibility that he killed them mean that she is a suspect?

--Telsa 09:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Richard did it" also sounds a bit informal to me. This statement also seems a bit out of place in this section of the article. Fenoxielo 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

in the book "the Hollow Crown" by Geoffrey Richardson he gives compelling arguements that John Morton, Bishop of Ely, Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal of the Church of Rome and Chancellor of England was the one who instigated the death of the princes, part of the evidence is that the accusation against Richard III is based on the work of Thomas More, problem is that Thomas More was the pupil of John Moreton and also a staunch Lancastrian ally. paladineagle 03:41, 15 April 2006 {UTC}

Good. Add him to the "suspects" section, with a summary of the arguments, then.

[edit] Sources

This article needs to cite sources. Much of the article reads like it is the opinions of the various editors of the article—this is to be avoided as it is original research. Only information and opinions that can be cited to reliable sources should be included in the article. JeremyA 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Taken from..."?

What's all this "Taken from http://experts.about.com/e/p/pr/Princes_in_the_Tower.htm" all over the article? Quite apart from any question of style (WP:MOS and how to cite references etc), the about.com article says "Taken from Wikipedia" at the bottom. So it's an earlier version of this article. You can't use an early version of an article to reference a later version of an article. That would be silly :) Telsa (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I've added the relevant titles from the bibliography in the Richard III article. Deb 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of the article

Reference should be made to Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck as well as other cases for the putative survival of the Princes, along with a redirect from "The Princes in the Tower."

(No doubt if the Borgias had been linked to England they would have been blamed too).

Jackiespeel 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas More

Strange that Thomas More's account of the murder of the Princes and who dunnit doesn't even merit a mention here! Not even the usual sniffily inaccurate factoid which claims that he was a Tudor propagandist...Colin4C 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspects

Re this statement from the article:

If the boys were indeed murdered, there are several major suspects for the crime.

There is only one main contemporary suspect: Richard III. He had the means, motive and opportunity. All the rest were put under suspicion centuries later by those who, for whatever reason, wish to white-wash Richard. Colin4C 13:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, because you saw it done, didn't you Colin? Sheesh. We have no forensic evidence of when or how the princes died, and the only contemporary account we have which isn't wildly biased is from 400 miles away. We don't know what happened to the princes, nor are we likely to know short of a time machine. --jberkus

Within living memory (he mentions having met Jane Shore, who was condemned by Richard) Thomas More gives us an account of who ordered the murders and how it was done. Though the knee-jerk reaction from Ricardians is to dismiss this as 'Tudor propaganda', More's account was not written for publication and he was in no way in love with the Tudor dynasty. Colin4C 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)