• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Holbein and the Princes in the Tower

Magrat

Mrs. Rincewind
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
4,346
Location
Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
From AJ Pollard's Richard III and the Princes in the Tower:

the idea that Richard of York survived to reappear in Sir Thomas More’s household and there to be painted by Hans Holbein in 1527. Jack Leslau’s disentangling of the iconography and rebus of this painting, whereby he claims to show that the physician John Clements was really Richard of York in disguise, is breathtakingly ingenious. ‘Hans Holbein,’ he concludes, ‘concealed a message for posterity in this group portrait of the More family together with a portrait of Richard, duke of York, thus “proving” that he was alive in 1527 and living under...the protection of Sir Thomas More’. For good measure, Edward V is also said to have survived and to have been disguised as Sir Edward Guildford in another Holbein painting. Furthermore More’s vivid account of the murder of the princes in his History is discovered to have been a ‘smokescreen’.

This was first advanced the year before I was born I guess, just heard of it recently. When I did a search online I found stuff basically either saying "buy the book" or "this guy is a nut burger". I'm wondering if anyone knows more about this and what you think?
 
From AJ Pollard's Richard III and the Princes in the Tower:



This was first advanced the year before I was born I guess, just heard of it recently. When I did a search online I found stuff basically either saying "buy the book" or "this guy is a nut burger". I'm wondering if anyone knows more about this and what you think?

I'm going for nut burger given the descriptions of him dying in battle and then being paraded naked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhum...chard_III_of_England#Death_and_initial_burial

And then his body being discovered - or at least someone matching that description and with consistent DNA with matching female relatives.

Also this:
Bones[edit]

An osteological examination of the bones showed them to be in generally good condition and largely complete except for the missing feet, which may have been destroyed by Victorian building work. It was immediately apparent that the body had suffered major injuries, and further evidence of wounds was found as the skeleton was cleaned.[46] The skull shows signs of two lethal injuries; the base of the back of the skull had been completely cut away by a bladed weapon, which would have exposed the brain, and another bladed weapon had been thrust through the right side of the skull, striking the inside of the left side through the brain.[65] Elsewhere on the skull, a blow from a pointed weapon had penetrated the crown of the head. Bladed weapons had clipped the skull and sheared off layers of bone, without penetrating it.[66] Other holes in the skull and lower jaw were found to be consistent with dagger wounds to the chin and cheek.[67] The multiple wounds on the king’s skull indicated that he was not wearing his helmet, which he may have removed or lost when he was on foot after his horse had become stuck in the marsh.[68][69] One of his right ribs had been cut by a sharp implement, as had the pelvis.[70] There was no evidence of the withered arm that afflicted the character in William Shakespeare's play Richard III.[71][72]

Taken together, the injuries appear to be a combination of battle wounds, which were the cause of death, followed by post-mortem humiliation wounds inflicted on the corpse. The body wounds show that the corpse had been stripped of its armour, as the stabbed torso would have been protected by a backplate and the pelvis would have been protected by armour. The wounds were made from behind on the back and buttocks while they were exposed to the elements, consistent with the contemporary descriptions of Richard's naked body being tied across a horse with the legs and arms dangling down on either side.[67][70][73] There may have been further flesh wounds not apparent from the bones.[71]

The head wounds are consistent with a 1485 poem by Guto'r Glyn in which a Welsh knight, Sir Rhys ap Thomas killed Richard and "shaved the boar's head".[74] It had been thought that this was a figurative description of Richard being decapitated, but the skeleton's head had clearly not been severed. Guto's description may instead be a literal account of the injuries that Richard suffered, as the blows sustained to the head would have sliced away much of his scalp and hair and slivers of bone.[74] Other contemporary sources refer explicitly to head injuries and the weapons used to kill Richard; the French chronicler Jean Molinet wrote that "one of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd", and the Ballad of Lady Bessie recorded that "they struck his bascinet to his head until his brains came out with blood." Such accounts would certainly fit the damage inflicted on the skull.[73][75]

Sideways curvature of his spine was evident as the skeleton was excavated. It has been attributed to adolescent-onset scoliosis. Although it was probably visible in making his right shoulder higher than the left and reducing his apparent height, it did not preclude an active lifestyle, and would not have caused a hunchback.[76] The bones are those of a male with an age range estimation of 30–34,[69] consistent with Richard, who was 32 when he died.[71]
 
I think it is fanciful thinking.

All the evidence shows they were done in by Richard III within a few months of being incarcerated in the tower. To get them out the tower into someone else's custody is difficult, the constable was loyal to Richard and they were closely guarded. Ricardians like to theorise that they were really kept alive the whole time and Henry Tudor had them quietly killed after Bosworth, but even their desperate fantasies do not suppose either survived - its just too hard to reconcile with the known information.

And secret messages in paintings is a bad plot device, it is not even a reason to consider an alternative and secret history.
 
I agree Mifune. I feel like, they were too dangerous for Richard III to leave around, and not any less dangerous to Henry VII. Also, Elizabeth of York was their sister, if Richard of York was living in Thomas More's court she never ever caught a glimpse of him?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom