Princes in Tower spoiler

The theory of the film was, by the way, that either Perkin was the real
deal, that uncle Richard had performed a mercy killing of a sick Edward
V, then spirited away Richard to Burgundy, OR that Margaret Beaufort
had somehow managed to move the boys downstairs to a deep, dark, damp
dungeon where she had kept them for all these years unseen, let them go
mad, had told nobody they were alive, and after Perkin's execution had
let them die, then buried them inside the Tower, under some stairs,
along with Edward's coronation robe which he had been wearing on his
coronation day, waiting at the Tower for someone to come collect him,
but nobody did.
Good theory or silly nonsense?
Discuss!!!
Paul

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> The theory of the film was, by the way, that either Perkin was the
real
> deal, that uncle Richard had performed a mercy killing of a sick
Edward
> V, then spirited away Richard to Burgundy, OR that Margaret Beaufort
> had somehow managed to move the boys downstairs to a deep, dark, damp
> dungeon where she had kept them for all these years unseen, let them
go
> mad, had told nobody they were alive, and after Perkin's execution
had
> let them die, then buried them inside the Tower, under some stairs,
> along with Edward's coronation robe which he had been wearing on his
> coronation day, waiting at the Tower for someone to come collect him,
> but nobody did.
> Good theory or silly nonsense?
> Discuss!!!
> Paul

I completely forgot to watch it - or perhaps the Radio Times grisly
blurb and silly picture of two frightened boys in yellow wigs made me
subconsciously afraid to.

Both sound like silly nonsense to me, but the second one is the sillier
of the two. I am assuming it is based on Those Bones, in which case
they appear to be suggesting that Margaret Beaufort put the Princes
into a state of arrested development from 1485 until 1499. This is
going some when it's hard enough for the traditionalists to argue the
owners of those bones even up to the ages of the Princes in 1483. Did
she have them prick their fingers with a spindle and go to sleep?

The first one actually puzzles me. Are they interpolating
the "evidence" of the Bones into the Perkin Warbeck scenario? This is
often enough done, God knows. It goes something like: the owner of the
older set of bones had osteomyelitis, therefore Edward V had
osteomyelitis. Therefore he could have died naturally, in which case
Perkin Warbeck could be the younger Prince. But, to point out the
obvious, if those bones are not the bones of the two Princes, then the
elder one in not Edward V and we have no reason to presume he had
osteomyelitis.
Or was this based on the report of Dr Argentine to Mancini that Edward
was preparing himself for death?
It doesn't sound as if the people who made the programme had even read
Ann Wroe - at least not right to the end.

Marie