Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is this the ghost of King Edward V?


Black Monk

Recommended Posts

On 12/01/2017 at 11:12 AM, Mr.United_Nations said:

Apparently he was assisnated by a assasin hired by one of his uncles. Years later the guy confessed during a battle. Cant remmember the whole story  but it is interesting

I don't think anyone knows for certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Am I missing something here? I fail to see how this proves anything (re what happened to the two princes).  And that child's face looks closer to a 9 year old than a 12 year old's.   That they both died in the Tower is probably correct so what more does the supposed appearance of a child's ghost prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2017 at 0:17 PM, Susanc241 said:

Am I missing something here? I fail to see how this proves anything (re what happened to the two princes).  And that child's face looks closer to a 9 year old than a 12 year old's.   That they both died in the Tower is probably correct so what more does the supposed appearance of a child's ghost prove?

I have read various places that have said about two children sized skeletons found at the tower hundred of years later. And that these skeletons are not probably buried  in with other royal dead. For what ever it's worth, I think it could possibly be the two princes there. I know, I don't have proof if they are, but I'm just surmising that they are. Frankly, no matter that one of them happened to be the currant King of England at the time, I still feel, :o  :(   that these children were treated like these and possibly killed. 

On another note, and I'm just being ;) here, but if that child looks like a nine year old, that that I would surmise that being younger brother Richard. And in a joking manner, Perkin was an imposter!!!   ;)     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have read various places that have said about two children sized skeletons found at the tower hundred of years later. And that these skeletons are not probably buried  in with other royal dead. For what ever it's worth, I think it could possibly be the two princes there. I know, I don't have proof if they are, but I'm just surmising that they are. Frankly, no matter that one of them happened to be the currant King of England at the time, I still feel, :o  :(   that these children were treated like these and possibly killed. 

On another note, and I'm just being ;) here, but if that child looks like a nine year old, that that I would surmise that being younger brother Richard. And in a joking manner, Perkin was an imposter!!!   ;)     

We accept the two princes were last seen in the tower (documented) and I am not saying that they weren't murdered there as is believed.  It is pretty certain that someone, if not Richard III himself, disposed of them.  The bones found are probably that of the boys but I do not think the authorities will now allow disinterment for DNA testing (that's the last I heard, anyway).  My point was that the 'ghost' proves nothing.  We know they are dead.  Ghosts don't prove manner of death.  And yes, I think, IF the face in the photo is a ghost (and I am not convinced it is not a reflection of a living person) then it looks more like the younger prince, Richard, age wise.  And I have always gone with the belief that Perkin Warbeck was indeed a chancer and impersonator.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2017 at 4:00 AM, Susanc241 said:

We accept the two princes were last seen in the tower (documented) and I am not saying that they weren't murdered there as is believed. 

Neither am I. I may have wishful thinking thoughts, and hope that they were spirited away, ( from rare sources I have read ), but it does seem to me as well, that it's more than likely they were murdered there at the tower. ( Poor souls, :( ) 

Quote

 It is pretty certain that someone, if not Richard III himself, disposed of them. 

Where did you get your certainty. I'm not being snarky or anything I believe I have read sources that shows a strong willingness to believe that someone may have, but I would find it interesting how it has been shown that the princes were indeed murdered, if not by a certain someone(s). :) 

Quote

 The bones found are probably that of the boys but I do not think the authorities will now allow disinterment for DNA testing (that's the last I heard, anyway). 

That's what I heard too. I remember an article ( or news bit ) that was saying Queen Elizabeth the second doesn't want them interred and their DNA checked, because she would not want to then go through having them taken from the royal burials, and then having to find out or going through the mystery of where the actual remains of the princes are. I kind of understand her point on this, but I think that this is too much of mystery to let alone. *shrugs*

Quote

 My point was that the 'ghost' proves nothing.  We know they are dead.  Ghosts don't prove manner of death.  And yes, I think, IF the face in the photo is a ghost (and I am not convinced it is not a reflection of a living person) then it looks more like the younger prince, Richard, age wise.  And I have always gone with the belief that Perkin Warbeck was indeed a chancer and impersonator.

I agree with you. :tu: I myself,(though a fan of the paranormal) feel that it could be anything. I'm not dismissing the reflection possibility either. When one is living in places that one sees things, the first thing would be to ..... want to dismiss it as paranormal and rationalize it as normal, ...... because one has to live there! ;)  Mostly so in military housing, where I have seen various crazy things, paranormal and non-paranormal. :lol: 

I have come to the conclusion long ago, Warbeck was an impersonator. (He was one of two Richard impersonators, right? ) Which, nevertheless, both of them were executed. :no:  I agree also, that the reflection looks too young for Edward, and more so for Richard. But, I agree with someone else on here, that the reflection looks more two to four years old. I hate to think that there were other children who have died in that tower, ( more so from illness if the case ) or that is the reflection of a living toddler with his parents touring the place. I would, for the sake of the individual who belongs to that face, that it's the latter. ;) 

Besides, I have noticed that reflections can do crazy things. :w00t: 

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stubbly - I am PRETTY certain IMO that the princes died in the tower though can't prove it, on the basis that 1. skeletons of children the right age have been found hidden in the Tower.  2. The fact that no fully adult prince(s) surfaced years later to claim sovereignty.  3.  Apart from Perkin Warbeck and one or more other chancers, no-one else gave evidence or suggested the boys survived (there were no rumours about either or both boys being spirited away and I think someone would have blabbed if that was the case).  

It wouldn't surprise me if the boys were dispatched once news reached London that Richard III had died on the battlefield.  There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that the boys died prior to the battle.  Perhaps those loyal to Henry VII hot footed it back to the Tower (or were already in place and primed) to dispose of the competition.  All speculation on my part.

Children back in that time period would not have been as physically precocious as they are now.  The boys were in Sanctuary for quite a while and food probably wasn't as good as when their father still lived.  And who is to say what age a ghost chooses to be?

Thanks for your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2017 at 11:53 AM, Susanc241 said:

Stubbly - I am PRETTY certain IMO that the princes died in the tower though can't prove it, on the basis that 1. skeletons of children the right age have been found hidden in the Tower.  2. The fact that no fully adult prince(s) surfaced years later to claim sovereignty.  3.  Apart from Perkin Warbeck and one or more other chancers, no-one else gave evidence or suggested the boys survived (there were no rumours about either or both boys being spirited away and I think someone would have blabbed if that was the case).  

Well, I'm pretty certain as much as you are in thinking that they did indeed died in the tower. I was just really curious Considering you said it like this: 

Quote

It is pretty certain that someone, if not Richard III himself, disposed of them. 

It seems to come out objectively, and if that is the case, I would love to see how it's shown as definitely. Yes, I'm being a stickler here. Sorry about that, but if there was any update about it and there's a link to it, I would be happily curious to check it out. ;)  :tu:  You got my curiosity up, and was hoping to see if there was anything new. :yes: 

I too read about the box of children's bones found in the tower centuries later. The same ones given the burial, from what I have read, that the currant Queen refuses to have checked out to see if the DNA proves they are the princes. That would be my personal certainty that it could be them and that they died there in the tower. 

As for anyone as a fully adult prince, that would mean they were acknowledged in another court. I don't think a lot of exiled or presumed dead royals would be out in the open. But that is me, though. :) But yes, there doesn't seem to be any records of the rumors of them being spirited away. I have noticed, despite the time and era, and the lack of recording things, somethings tend to reach a grapevine and grow from them. I think of Richard the third and the rumor of his back hump and that he recent discovery of his bones to show he had sclerosis. 

Quote

It wouldn't surprise me if the boys were dispatched once news reached London that Richard III had died on the battlefield.  There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that the boys died prior to the battle.  Perhaps those loyal to Henry VII hot footed it back to the Tower (or were already in place and primed) to dispose of the competition.  All speculation on my part.

I think educated speculation. :)  I would assume the same thing. :yes: 

Quote

Children back in that time period would not have been as physically precocious as they are now.  The boys were in Sanctuary for quite a while and food probably wasn't as good as when their father still lived.  And who is to say what age a ghost chooses to be?

Thanks for your comments.

You're welcome, and yes good point. I have seen how the diet and other emotional factors could cause an individual to look older or younger. I never thought of that. 

Though, and it's just me who thinks this, I always thought people in the past looked older at an age, then those do now at the same age. *shrugs* 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a lot of history texts and what I am surmising is much the general overview from these histories.  Unfortunately, we can't go back and check for ourselves and have to rely on what is passed down.  Remembering that history is written (usually) by the victors, one can imagine that if Henry VII had a hand in the deaths, he would have made sure it was kept under wraps.  If Richard III was culpable then he wasn't around to do anything about any rumours, and Henry could have let all assume his (Richard's) guilt.  Shakespeare seems to have made Richard into an outright villain, and added to the image with his humped back and withered arm, both of which we now know to be false in the way described by Shakespeare.  It seems that at that time (late 1500s) at least, Richard was regarded to be the murderer of the princes, or Shakespeare believed so anyway.

IMO, it would seem a risky move for Richard to have done away with the princes.  If he had come back from the battle the victor he could not have risked the opprobrium of such an act.  Maybe someone did the deed for him, much as in the way Thomas Becket was assassinated after Henry II's throw away line, 'Who will rid me of this turbulent priest'.  At the same time, the boys' continued existence would have always been a threat, that others would rise up on the princes's behalf to overthrow Richard's claim to the throne.

It could be argued either way.  The truth went to the grave with all those involved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2017 at 7:15 AM, Susanc241 said:

I read a lot of history texts and what I am surmising is much the general overview from these histories.  Unfortunately, we can't go back and check for ourselves and have to rely on what is passed down.  Remembering that history is written (usually) by the victors, one can imagine that if Henry VII had a hand in the deaths, he would have made sure it was kept under wraps.  If Richard III was culpable then he wasn't around to do anything about any rumours, and Henry could have let all assume his (Richard's) guilt.  Shakespeare seems to have made Richard into an outright villain, and added to the image with his humped back and withered arm, both of which we now know to be false in the way described by Shakespeare.  It seems that at that time (late 1500s) at least, Richard was regarded to be the murderer of the princes, or Shakespeare believed so anyway.

IMO, it would seem a risky move for Richard to have done away with the princes.  If he had come back from the battle the victor he could not have risked the opprobrium of such an act.  Maybe someone did the deed for him, much as in the way Thomas Becket was assassinated after Henry II's throw away line, 'Who will rid me of this turbulent priest'.  At the same time, the boys' continued existence would have always been a threat, that others would rise up on the princes's behalf to overthrow Richard's claim to the throne.

It could be argued either way.  The truth went to the grave with all those involved.

And always will remain one of the many greatest mysteries. I would think it would be something risky for Richard, considering how he was so close to them at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.