This is the funniest thing that I’ve read in a long time.
First, the article repeatedly refers to the Princes in the Tower as twins, but later notes that Edward and Richard were aged 12 and 9 respectively.
Second, the entire premise of John Ashdown-Hill’s latest theory is that dental analysis of the remains in the Tower demonstrates the princes had hypodontia. Richard III’s skull does not show this condition. Therefore, the remains do not belong to the princes! Um, WHAT?
The only thing you can conclusively glean from Richard III’s skull is that he didn’t have hypodontia. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding the Tower remains. After all, the princes may have acquired the hypodontia from their mother! (The condition is considered X-linked, so inheritance of the trait in the female line is much more likely).
Moreover, hypodontia is very common in the European population, so this finding proves only that the Tower remains are probably European in origin, a fact never in doubt in the first place.
I have admiration for Dr. Ashdown-Hill’s contributions to locating Richard III’s remains and to tracing lines of descent to find a mitochondrial DNA match to confirm identity of the remains. But since then, his findings have all revolved around speculation that makes no sense once you drill down.
I also think the Richard III Society’s desperate need to prove Richard’s innocence actually does more harm than good. Maybe the Society could instead focus on the totality of the man’s life instead of this one (unprovable) event.