The bones were reputedly found with shreds of 'rag and velvet about them', a material unknown to Roman Britain, or any other part of the Empire for that matter.
Modern scientists would be very remiss if they pronounced conclusively on any bones by just looking at black and white photographs.
I think it is extremely insulting to infer that Dr Lawrence Tanner, an eminent physician, archivist and official at the Abbey and Professor W. Wright, a dental surgeon, who was President of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain, didn't know what they were talking about with regard to these incomplete skeletons, the probable age of the dead children, their height, or the dental evidence, especially the chronic bone disease in the elder child's jaw.
However, if we are going to argue that looking at black and white photographs (as well as examining the 1934 report) is acceptable, in 1955 Richard III's revisionist biographer enlisted the assistance of four experts: three Americans, one British, Dr W. Krogman, Professor of Physical Anthropology in the Graduate School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, and Professor B Kraus of the Dept of Anthropology University of Arizona, among them.
Professor Myers, the eminent medieval historian, canvassed the opinion of Professor Harrison, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Liverpool. In 1978 Elizabeth Jenkins, author of 'The Princes in the Tower', obtained an opinion from F M Lind, BDS London, LDS, RCs England.
In 1981 the late Prof Charles Ross, author of the seminal biography of Richard III, sought the opinions of Dr Juliet Jones, a specialist in the study of ancient bones, Dr Musgrove, an anatomist, and Prof. E Bradford, a professor of dental surgery. Dr Jean Ross, senior lecturer in anatomy at Charing Cross Hospital Medical School gave her opinion, in 1984, during a TV programme.
The findings of these experts were in all cases consistent with the bones being those of the Princes in the Tower. Although some questioned the findings of Tanner and Wright they did not discredit them; indeed, their conclusions substantiated them.
The dental evidence showed the age of the elder child was at least eleven years and at the most thirteen. The age of the younger child was placed at between seven and eleven and a half years. That is consistent with the Princes ages around September 1483, when they likely died, at a time when Richard was in full control of the Tower and its officials.
That part of the Tower was a private royal staircase leading to a Chapel used by the King for his own devotions. Who knows with such a tyrant as Richard what parts of buildings were cut off from officials and others who worked at the Tower at that time.
Yes, the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey, who are in charge, are reluctant to disturb any remains, and are not willing to submit the bones again to further tests. That is understandable, but in my view, regrettable. It may change when Charles comes to the throne.
