The Trial Of King Richard The Third - The Defence (18)

[meesterperfect]

best defense witness so far. he created reasonable doubt, showed buckingham had motive,means and opportunity.

he also showed reason why richard even if innocent had cause not to make their deaths public.

he brought up how richard didnt kill georges son who had a stronger right to the throne than richard.

I'm surprised the prosecution didnt bring up that this was probably because georges son was richards wifes nephew and in her care.

but that grandson of a bastard henry tudor killed the poor boy.

[valentinejay]

Good point, Doctor Plausible. From a historical point of view the bones are important, but because of the direction this Trial took they weren't quite so significant within this context. The trouble was they had such a short time to go over the relevant evidence.

[PoliticalPars]

@valentinejay With current DNA testing, would the government and/or monarchy consider testing, I wonder? Certainly that would put this one issue of the death of the boys at rest.

[valentinejay]

@PoliticalPars I wish that they would do this - it would be so interesting. I can't see it happening while Elizabeth II is alive (I admire her deeply but I think she prefers the status quo). Hopefully Charles or William might be more interested in this issue. Certainly the current Duke of Gloucester has an interest in the whole affair, and he and Charles are very good friends so we might see it happen one day. Wish we knew where Perkin Warbeck's remains were -now THEY would be interesting.

[DoctorPlausible]

Learned jokes. How refreshing in these times.

The matter of whether those skeletons were the boys' is immaterial. It could have been dropped by either camp, with hardly any effect.