the elder skeleton but not the younger.
3.The DNA could match neither skeleton, but this might prove nothing.
Let us consider each of the possibilities in turn:
1.If the bones were confirmed to be the princes then it doesn’t take Inspector Morse to deduce that a burial in a chest, under rubble, under a stairwell is likely to indicate the princes did not die of natural causes. We would have a confirmed murder case on our hands.
The next crucial piece of information would then be age of the boys at death. Remember there were only three years between Richard III's accession to the throne and his death at Bosworth. Who was the monarch at the time of the boys' death? A death after August 1482 would leave Richard III firmly off the hook.
If we take Wright and Tanner's forensic dental work as gospel this would indicate a time of death shortly after Richard III's accession to the throne. However, we now know from the British Dental Association that there is a 4 year error factor. Based on this fact the deaths could easily have occurred up to a year after Bosworth.
2.This DNA result would be the most interesting of the possibilities. This would mean that the elder of the two boys was King Edward V. However, the younger of the two boys would not have been Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. There have long been theories (expanded by modern novelists) that Elizabeth Woodville gave a changeling to Richard III in the place of her second son, the Duke of York. We will consider the changeling theory a little later in the book.
3.A negative DNA result on both sets of bones might prove nothing. Edward IV’s parentage was questioned publicly a number of times, both during his own reign when his brother George tried unsuccessfully to claim the throne and just prior to Richard III being offered the crown. If there were truth to these rumours then the DNA of Anne Plantagenet might never have been a match for her nephews anyway.
What are the possibilities of new forensic tests?
After the confirmation that Richard III's body had been found in Leicester, the Richard III society once more applied to have these very tests undertaken on the bones. Once again, the answer came back no.
As Westminster Abbey is a royal peculiar the monarch has to agree to any tests on the bones. Her Majesty is very clear that she wants the bones to lay undisturbed.
Recently released Government papers show the monarch, home secretary and the Church of England all to be in agreement on the matter (these papers relate to an earlier request in the 1980s.) The papers show that the great concern is that if permission was granted to examine the bones then it would set a precedent, and this might result in requests to disturb numerous royal tombs. For example, historians might want to test Henry VIII's body to find out if he did have syphilis or type-two diabetes.
There is no indication from the present Prince of Wales that his stance would be different. So for the considerable present there is little possibility that additional forensic tests would take place.
Other possible “bodies”
Of course, the skeletons are not the only human remains that have been suggested to be the bodies of the princes.
There are a number of early writings that suggest that the bodies were dropped into the sea or the Thames by the priest of Sir Roger Brackenbury. Brackenbury was by this stage the Constable of the Tower of London and would have been well placed to take part in any murder.
There is a short tantalizing section in Archaeologia, Volume LXXXIV that reports of a sealed up room being discovered in the royal apartments of the Tower of London. Inside that room were the skeletons of two children. However, this is the only mention of this case. If it were true then surely there would have been further investigation and subsequent attempts to locate the room. However, simple searching on the internet does show that one of the “theories” about the fate of