To Seward the final proof of any mis-deeds was the finding of two skeletons at the Tower in 1674. This episode demonstrates the way in which Seward manipulates the sources to produce the result he wants. Once again he relies heavily on Sir Thomas More's version of events. This is despite the fact that he admits that More, 'May well have indulged his sense of the dramatic'(32). and that he has been 'rejected by many historians'(33). He recounts all the gory details of the murder of the Princes, as told by More, finishing with his description of the burial of bodies at 'a stairfoot, meely deep in the ground
under some stones'(34). Seward is quick to show how this fits in with the finding of the bones. Strangely Seward immediately contradicts what had appeared to be a reasonable theory. He writes that;
'More adds that a priest of Brackenbury's later disinterred them and re-buried the bodies, since the King did not like to leave them 'in so vile a corner'(35)
By adding this last sentence Seward has completely destroyed his own conclusions. He constantly refers to the skeletons as those of males, and writes that;
‘However when the urn was opened in 1933 and the skeletons were examined, both were found to be male’(36)
He is referring to the Tanner and Wright examination of the bones; in this case Seward appears to have been deliberately miss-leading with his sources. The reason for this is that Professor Wright, an anatomist, was actually unable to determine the sex of the skeletons, as at that age it is impossible then, 1933, to determine the sex from bones. One can only assume he has done this to add credence to his theory.
In answer to the question, who killed the Princes? Hicks writes:
'Most likely Richard killed them, just as other usurpers eliminated their predecessors and concealed their fate to avoid condemnation' (37)
This stance is taken by Hicks because he takes the attitude that, unfortunately, they were the victims
of Middle-ages political expediency.
As far as Hicks is concerned, Richard saw it as a straight choice of who the rebels would unite behind. In this case Richard thought that the Earl of Richmond would make less of a figurehead than the
Princes. In, what appears to be, an attempt to lessen the impact of the Princes' death, Hicks places it into its historical context when he writes:
'What lasting harm did Richard II's do to Henry IV or Henry VI's to Edward IV Their deaths were allowed for in politics, just as politicians dropped the Princes from their plans after November 1483' (38).
It is as if Hicks is wanting to blame those that denounced Richard for over-reacting. He does concede that the fact that in Richard's case the victims were children did not help. In this section he does not cite from any of his sources. In this case as in that of Clarence, Hicks has once again pointed out that this was a violent age that was to begat violent deeds.
|