Reaching Lifelong Goals as a Nontraditional Student

As a Non Traditional Student and a History Major, I have been enjoying my assignments for research papers in my Shakespeare series of classes.  I have been posting my papers on the Reaching Lifelong Goals blog as a archive online of my Non Trad journey.   I have created a special category on my blog to post these papers, and this is one of my first efforts that I had missed posting.   An interesting comparison to my latest works as I have been learning about how to present these papers in proper formats, citations and content.   So far, my instructor, Peter Jensen seems to like what I have to say as I have a perfect record of A+ papers over the past three terms in ENG201-203.   I post these papers for the fun of it, but if they provide any ideas for my fellow Non Traditional Students on their research papers, I am OK with it.  I’ll be posting a couple more that are missing from this category over the next few days.   Please feel free to comment or post any rebuttals you may have, I have a thick skin!   Thank you for your time.

The Two Princes in the Tower of London:  What Could Today’s Forensic Anthropology tell us About the Mystery?

The story of the two princes in the tower is one of the great mysteries of the English monarchy.   The historical background of the two princes and their fates closely follows Shakespeare’s portrayal in Richard III.   Shakespeare uses Sir James Tyrrel’s soliloquy in Act IV, Scene 3 to illustrate the murders of Edward V and his brother Richard, 1st Duke of York, in great detail.   He further places guilt on Richard with him saying “Kind Tyrrell am I happy in thy news?”   Historical records do show that the princes were never seen again after the summer of 1483. Their fate remains unknown, and it is presumed that they either died or were killed there. There is no record of a funeral.

.   The remains of the two princes were left untouched from 1674 until being studied in 1933.   With the Permission of King George V, the bones were opened and studied.   This investigation, conducted by Drs. Wright and Tanner in 1933, was done under constraints that could have affected the accuracy of their findings. There is a possibility of bias on their part because they knew in advance the ages of Edward and Richard in 1483. Since 1933, there have been those who have made credible challenges to their findings.  Finally, even without the constraints, Wright and Tanner did not have the technology at their disposal to end speculation. They could not DNA-test the remains and thus end all arguments. Through the dental remains there appeared to be some kind of blood relation between the two skeletons, but this could not be proved. [2] At the time, the dental problems with the two skulls only linked them circumstantially to the written records.   A later archeological find 30 years later of another skeleton of the same period could have offered some comparisons.

In January of 1965, the London Museum announced that the remains of Anne Mowbray, the child wife of Richard, 1^st Duke of York had been discovered.   Her skeletal remains were found by workers in a lead coffin.   The condition of the skull and teeth was very good, lending them to possible DNA testing at some point.    An observation from the Richard III Society website about the scientific information and its usefulness is noteworthy: “Further, scientific methods of dating bones have advanced much since 1933 and the differences in development between mediaeval and modern children may, in principle, be addressed because of the discovery in 1964 of the coffin and remains of Anne Mowbray, child wife of Richard of York, whose age and date of death are known. This gives a direct contemporary parallel by which to judge the age and development of the controversial skeletons.”[3]

This brings us to the question at hand. With the advances in forensic anthropology since the original investigation in 1933, will it be possible to identify the bones as belonging to Edward V and Richard 1^st Duke of York?

Through the use of radio carbon dating of the bones, the age of the bones could only determined within a window of years.   There is a great deal of controversy around the accuracy of C-14 carbon dating[4].   The accuracy of this type of dating is not exact.  Radio Carbon dating of the bones through this method might not yield a definitive identification to the exact date in 1483.   It could however, show that the bones are from the correct general time period and not “leftovers” from a Roman burial centuries before.  Also, as noted above, there could be comparisons made with the remains of Anne Mowbray where the actual dates are known.

Perhaps the most promising new scientific tool that could be used is Mitochondrial DNA testing.   The science here is far more reliably accurate.   It was noted in the 1933 investigation that one of the skulls had teeth that viable DNA could be extracted from.   If this DNA could be tested against bloodlines existing today through a matriarchal connection, an accurate determination one way or the other could be made.   Also, the DNA from Anne Mowbray could also be utilized, as she was a cousin to the Princes.

The use of new scientific methods and forensics on the two skeletons might offer the cause of death.   The 1933 study made mention of blood stains around the mouth of the older skull, but no definitive findings could be made at that time.   Today’s forensic science and the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging could give us a more accurate picture of the damage to the skull.

Even if the two skeletons were identified as Henry V and his younger brother Richard 1^st Duke of York, would this put an end to the controversy?   It only would solve one part of the mystery, identification of the remains.   Would this prove Richard III’s guilt or innocence?    I think not.   The battle between the current day “Ricardians” and the “Yorkists” seems to be one of the most heated debates in historical circles.   Until more definitive evidence about the motives and actions of Richard III can be found, I feel no resolution is possible.

However, at the present time all of this is moot, as the remains are not available for study.   Queen Elizabeth has not given her permission for the study of the Princes’ remains.   They remain in the urn in Westminster Abbey.   The last request for study was rejected by the queen in 2002.  For the use of the current forensic science, it would be necessary to have access to the remains.   Prince Charles, next in line to the throne, has indicated interest in reopening this study. Until he becomes King, he does not have any power in this matter.  Will this change open up opportunities for further study of the princes’ bones?   This is a scenario that only time will reveal.    I am often reminded that Winston Churchill was right, “history is written by the victor.”

Maurer, Helen The Ricardian Vol. 8, No. 111 December 1990

[2] www.fifteenthcentury.net/skeletons

[3] To Prove a Villain, The real Richard III, Exhibition at the Royal National Theater, London, 1991
http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/deadbones.html