Time Travel Question : Murder and Disappearance Edition I

Given that Judge Crater, Roanoke, and the Dyatlov Pass Incident are credibly solved, though not 100% provable, I'm leaving them out in favor of things ,ore mysterious. I almost left out Amelia Earhart, but the evidence there is sketchier.

Some people were a little confused. Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury are the Princes in the Tower.

“I hope King Charles III will allow new research into murder of the York Princes. Like are there actually aditional burried bodies beside Edward IV or not? Are bodies found in 1674 in Tower them? And if so, how did they die? So many unanswered questions, but so many fans which would love it for King Charles to give us some answers.” - Submitted by Anonymous

A big ask I know. But what is some evidence that the documentary conveniently ignored to push their survival narrative?

Evidence of the death of the princes is much less conclusive, because the only contemporary evidence we have are several chroniclers abroad and in England & Wales stating that the princes were murdered or were believed to have been murdered. There is more evidence that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were impostors, though. From the top of my head: the Sétubal testimonies confessing Warbeck was not Richard of Shrewsbury, Maximilian I's own 1488 admission to Henry VII claiming he was duped by Margaret of York into backing an impostor (only to do the same again four years later), Perkin Warbeck's letter asking his mother in Tournai for money to pay his expenses in prison in England, and comments by foreign ambassadors who understood the situation was simply international politics.

For more precise scrutinising of the evidence on Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck I really recommend Nathen Amin's Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders. He never explicitly says his opinion but the evidence he presents clearly points to a logical conclusion.

Now, one truly has to ask why Langley & co decided to discard their earlier Da Vinci code theory that Edward V lived out his days as John Evans in a small Devon village and instead chose to go with the by now often beaten theory that Lambert Simnel was Edward V. It doesn't make sense because those symbols/glass panels were the only genuine new evidence they found (even if imo it's not conclusive to Edward V's survival). The rest was already known since the 1950s.

Richard III & the Princes in the Tower | Facial Re-Creations & History Documentary | Royalty Now

Im still not sure it will happen but how cool would that be?

Edward V chilling in Essex after Uncle Dickie’s failed assassination attempt

wasn't there a theory a while ago that one of the princes (richard i think) became a brick layer because this particular worker was recorded as speaking latin? and so he was too educated for his social rank?

I never heard of it, sorry. Nonetheless, I don't buy that theory.

New post about the Princes in the Tower!

Check it out! Or don't. I can't tell you what to do.

as a title duke of norfolk is kinda hilarious because it kept on getting forfeited in the 1500s but it also kept on getting doggedly restored to the howards as if nothing had ever happened to it. despite the fact that at one point the title was vacant for eighty-eight years after the previous owner lost his head a bit. and that is the same title that the current duke of norfolk holds. today.

It [the Dieulacres chronicle] appears, in the first place, to contain confirmation of the charge that Henry IV had committed perjury in seizing the crown. But the oath described therein and that in Hardyng and the Percy manifesto are distinctly different. According to the latter, Henry swore to allow Richard to keep his throne. But the Dieulacres version states that Henry promised to give way if a more suitable candidate was found and content himself with his inheritance: it implies that the removal of Richard was intended from the start. In this context, however, the Dieulacres Chronicle does adduce a piece of evidence in favour of the Percies’ claims which does not appear elsewhere: Hotspur refused to attend Henry IV’s coronation feast. It is, however, doubtful whether any reliance can be attached to this statement or any conclusions drawn from it. We know that on the eve of the coronation Hotspur was created a Knight of the Bath and robes were purchased for himself and his wife. Moreover, his father played a leading part both in the coronation and in the feast as constable of England. We must conclude that the information contained in the Dieulacres Chronicle - coming, as it does, in the description of the negotiations on the eve of Shrewsbury - is best regarded as another version of the Percies’ propaganda.

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)

just checked the word doc which has my draft of the shrewsbury wound-john bradmore sequence, thinking it was around 10k long. it's actually 19,242 words long. double what i thought it was. holy crap.

“too many people are obsessed with the tale of the "princes of the tower" and their plight not even realizing the entire idea of the infantilized princes in the tower who just disappeared is propaganda that's pro-Richard. They were a usurped king and his brother, not just two missing princelings.” - Submitted by Anonymous

Jane Milward, the wife of a miner in the late 1700s, fed her husband Richard and their six children, as a report described:

The management of the ground is in good measure left to his wife Jane, although her husband always assists in digging after his hours of ordinary labour (in the pit). In 13 years their scrap of ground yielded good crops of potatoes peas and cabbages, which she sold in Shrewsbury. She kept a pig and used its droppings for manure along with what she and the children could scrape off the roads. Without Jane's efforts, a family of six children would have been reduced to pauperdom.

"Normal Women: 900 Years of Making History" - Philippa Gregory

An Abbey in Dublin Unearthed

Excavations in Dublin city centre have uncovered the remains of what was once one of Ireland’s most important medieval monasteries. St Mary’s was a House of Benedictines, followed by Savignac monks and then Cistercians, and it was exceedingly wealthy, with the added bonus of being permitted to claim goods from shipwrecks. At times, it was quite a troubled place–the mayor of Dublin, Robert de…

View On WordPress