Researchers claim to have found evidence that the older boy Edward may not have been murdered, but instead secretly allowed to live on his half-brother’s land under a false name.
They have followed a trail of medieval documents to a rural Devon village, where royal Yorkist symbols have been found carved in the local church. Inside, an effigy of a mysterious man named ‘John Evans’ gazes directly at a stained glass window revealed to depict Edward V, the missing prince himself. The research suggests that Edward V and John Evans were one and the same, and that he may have even left clues inside the church for future generations to find.” telegraph
“The Daughter of Time is a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey, concerning a modern police officer’s investigation into the alleged crimes of King Richard III of England. It was the last book Tey published in her lifetime, shortly before her death. In 1990 it was voted number one in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list compiled by the British Crime Writers’ Association.[1] In 1995 it was voted number four in The Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list compiled by the Mystery Writers of America.” wiki
Comment: The “Daughter of Time is one of my favorite books, along with “A Canticle for Leibowitz,” “Across the River and into the trees” and a few others.
The woman who is at the heart of this enquiry admires Richard III to the point of adoration. When his bones were found a few years ago under the tarmac in a parking lot that had once belonged to a monastery’s cemetery, she took it hard that he really did have a bad curvature of the spine. mysteriously, the particular parking space had a red “R” painted on it.
I recommend Tey’s book to you. pl
Just for balance colonel – really bad history the latest Richard 111 conspiracy @david starkey talks 30/12/21 ( well known but now cancelled historian) . Happy new year to you
Kevin Daley
Link?
Here’s a link to the Dr Starkey video mentioned.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bFOMWkYQWsA
I have found him on YouTube on our cable subscription. I didn’t like his presentation on Richard III and have had to turn off others. I have always thought Richard III got a raw deal in history. Henry Tudor just wanted to help out his nephews and so launched an invasion of England. It was altruistic and generosity on his part. Unfortunately some bastard had already killed them. I don’t believe any of it.
I find that it is impossible for me to listen to long presentations on the computer so I listen in the living room on TV. I can’t really multitask on the computer. I find there are other things to do and it is impossible to pay attention and comprehend lectures. Music is another matter entirely.
I highly recommend all of Defragged History many programs, Daniel Sheehan’s UCSC lectures, and the few Fletcher Prouty interviews and talks on YouTube. Winter is here and these are good distractions for those of us at home. This is a link for computers to Defragged History:
https://defraggedhistory.com
This is a page that has a sort of syllabus generated for Daniel Sheehan’s UCSC lectures on the JFK assassination. The arrows on each class open a window for the lectures. Unfortunately they are about 2 hours each!
https://danielpsheehan.com/ucsc-2013-jfk-assassination/
Prouty only has a few and I think they are available on YouTube.
If physiognomy is based on valid science then we are all in trouble. Me especially as I have four or five of the facial and bodily attributes that would qualify me as a born criminal. But I’ve known one or two individuals with angel faces that were devious kleptos &/or reprobates.
But I agree that Richard got a raw deal. How could the Brits not like the guy that was the last English king to die in battle? William Shakespeare’s disparaging portrayal of Richard III probably killed any chance of character redemption. Will was sucking up to the Tudor’s at the time. But for some reason there were some in England, both Lancastrians & a few disaffected Yorkists, who disliked Richard enough to fight against him at the Battle of Bosworth. Most prominent of course was Lord Stanley’s last minute treason at that battle sealed Richard’s fate. There are some that said Henry concealed himself during Richard’s last charge and threw down his weapons. I haven’t heard of any physiognomist reading Henry’s face for cowardice.
Hugh Ross Williamson in his “Historical Whodunnits” laid the responsibility squarely on Henry Tudor whose claim to the throne was shaky in the extreme. Edward V clearly was the rightful heir after Richard’s death at Bosworth. Henry later solidifies his claim somewhat by marrying Elizabeth of York in 1486. Of course no-one has any actual evidence, just hearsay and supposition but that’s history for ya.