This Sun article, which originally confused Richard’s Leicester with Henry I’s Reading, lists what they consider to be Britain’s top burial sites, although there is no detail on the supposed “Princes” in that urn, especially now that there is evidence to test the remains.
Are there any others you might have included?
murreyandblue 
Well, given what we now know of geological layers, chances are those particular bits of remains (and chicken bones) are pre-Norman, likely pre-Roman even. Also, why was it that since Saintly More clearly knew where they were buried (and then didn’t 😒) was it Charles II who located them rather than any of the Tudors? Nice bit of political propaganda by Charles, there. Why did no one notice the dug up stairs right after their disappearance? 🤷
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. If Henry VII was supposed to have ‘searched everywhere’ for them, why not there, especially as More says it was known. Of course, More goes on to say the remains were REMOVED and buried elsewhere, so if one believes his tale, then you must also believe the bones are NOT the princes’. And…if the burial place was ‘known’ but obfuscated by the tale of the bodies being removed and reburied but in fact the bodies ARE the Princes, then it looks like the Tudors deliberately wanted it thought that they were, in fact, buried somewhere else, which means THEY were the ones concealing the burial. Now why would they want to do that, I wonder???
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d have also included the Amesbury Archer, the richest Bronze Age burial in northwestern Europe containing Britain’s oldest metalwork arrayed alongside a man who was a migrant from the Alps, and the amazingly preserved medieval St Bees knight. He was so well preserved, he had blood still in his tissues.
LikeLiked by 1 person