Discussion Main / TheFateOfThePrincesInTheTower

I think that trope summary for this article need some significant rewriting. There's six, HUGE paragraphs talking about this recent theory about the princes surviving. All the other explanations are bullet-pointed in a few sentences, and don't go into a huge debate and presentation of evidence. This strikes me as overly long.

Additionally, I think this may violate the Rule of Cautious Editing. The paragraphs present a very Ricardian perspective of the evidence, with minimal attention given to the very serious critiques historians have levied at it. Similarly, the summary gives the impression that the Ricardian position is gaining round in the historical consensus, but the figure quoted saying this is a die-hard Ricardian. In fact, the Ricardian interpretation(s) of the fates of the Princes in the Tower remain fringe theories, and the consensus of professional historians is that Richard III is the most likely candidate for the princes' deaths.

Adding some additional information to theory #5 that this theory has garnered additional attention and support from Ricardians as result of these documents, books, and projects I think takes a more neutral tone and favors brevity.

Semi-related — the murder of Juan Borgia some 10 years later. His brother Cesare most likely did not do it — Juan was rampaging around Rome making enemies, and his father Pope Alexander VI basically accused the Orsini family. Still, who exactly got Juan to follow a masked man out of a party at his mother's house, and why, is a 500 year old mystery.