DNA evidence would be useful or definitive

The difficulty in displaying the princes, presuming Richard had them killed, was that they were children aged 9 and 12: seen as `innocents,' so a certain odium would've attached to Richard had he been so foolish to give apparent evidence that he may've bumped them off. He could've displayed them and blamed Buckingham, whether true or not, but as we don't have clairvoyant powers to read the minds of people long dead, we may never know.

A comment was made about respecting the private lives of people: given the fact that royals have made such a fuss, through primogeniture, of being descended from `royal' blood (is this any different from common blood?) it seems valid to question whether Isabella was under the sheets with a man other than the rampantly gay Edward II, who treated her with extreme contempt at the start of the marriage and given the fact that Katherine Howard (at least one Queen) slept around. Discussing whether a certain person had children murdered is a little on the private side also.

2nd posting.

Working with your scenario that Richard III killed Edward IV's sons, he was in for a lot of odium whether he displayed them or not. At least if he displayed their bodies he could give his own spin on events. Doing nothing attracted the odium but deprived him of having his say, a double whammy. Not clever.

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:14 PM
Subject: DNA evidence would be useful or definitive



The difficulty in displaying the princes, presuming Richard had them killed, was that they were children aged 9 and 12: seen as `innocents,' so a certain odium would've attached to Richard had he been so foolish to give apparent evidence that he may've bumped them off. He could've displayed them and blamed Buckingham, whether true or not, but as we don't have clairvoyant powers to read the minds of people long dead, we may never know.

A comment was made about respecting the private lives of people: given the fact that royals have made such a fuss, through primogeniture, of being descended from `royal' blood (is this any different from common blood?) it seems valid to question whether Isabella was under the sheets with a man other than the rampantly gay Edward II, who treated her with extreme contempt at the start of the marriage and given the fact that Katherine Howard (at least one Queen) slept around. Discussing whether a certain person had children murdered is a little on the private side also.

2nd posting.

Maybe Richard wasn't all that clever: his brother certainly wasn't in the way he upset his brother Edward IV and their father York wasn't the sharpest tool in the box in the way he attacked a much larger force and got himself and Rutland killed in 1460.

Killing children often appals people (forgetting that countless children have been killed in the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries), but they forget that children can grow up and be extremely dangerous. Sitting on the eggs of serpents can get a foolish hen killed later on.


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Working with your scenario that Richard III killed Edward IV's sons, he was in for a lot of odium whether he displayed them or not. At least if he displayed their bodies he could give his own spin on events. Doing nothing attracted the odium but deprived him of having his say, a double whammy. Not clever.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: HI
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:14 PM
> Subject: DNA evidence would be useful or definitive
>
>
>
> The difficulty in displaying the princes, presuming Richard had them killed, was that they were children aged 9 and 12: seen as `innocents,' so a certain odium would've attached to Richard had he been so foolish to give apparent evidence that he may've bumped them off. He could've displayed them and blamed Buckingham, whether true or not, but as we don't have clairvoyant powers to read the minds of people long dead, we may never know.
>
> A comment was made about respecting the private lives of people: given the fact that royals have made such a fuss, through primogeniture, of being descended from `royal' blood (is this any different from common blood?) it seems valid to question whether Isabella was under the sheets with a man other than the rampantly gay Edward II, who treated her with extreme contempt at the start of the marriage and given the fact that Katherine Howard (at least one Queen) slept around. Discussing whether a certain person had children murdered is a little on the private side also.
>
> 2nd posting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>