Hi ya!

I am doing some research into the disappearance of the princes in the tower and I was wondering if anyone could recommend any books or other material that may help.

Just to explain, I do voluntary work at Southwark Cathedral and occasionally at Westminster Abbey and I am looking for as an objective view as possible so that when I give talks and information to visitors, I can let them make up their own minds.

I would also like to look more deeply into what happened for personal reasons as I was brought up to believe the story handed down by the 'Tudors' but after listening to differing historians views, I am starting to question what actually happened.

I appreciate that this probably a saw subject matter and I hope that I have not offended anyone by bringing the matter up but if anyone would like to make some suggestions I would be extremely grateful.

Thanks in advance,

Lynn.

Dear Lynn

It's good to hear from someone who wants to give visitors accurate
information.

I'm sure others will have different recommendations, but I would
suggest you start with Paul Murray Kendall's biography, published in
the fifties. It has a 20-page appendix on 'Who Murdered the 'Little
Princes', so all the information is together. A quick flip through,
however, failed to find anything there about the bodies dug up in the
seventeenth century who are now labelled as The Princes in
Westminster Abbey. Charles Ross's biography (1981) has a chapter on
The Fate of Edward IV's Sons which includes this, but - without
reading it again myself - his attitude towards Richard isn't exactly
positive. The same can be said, more emphatically, of the works of
Alison Weir and Michael Hicks. Audrey Williamson has written a whole
book about The Mystery of the Princes, and Bertram Fields' Royal
Blood is a more up to date discussion. You need both an overview of
the Wars of the Roses and detailed information of the chronology of
the Princes which you are unlikely to find in one book.

Clear a couple of feet of space on your bookshelves to start off
with, and enjoy! There's a lot of material about.

Best wishes
Christine

At 15:23 06/09/2009, you wrote:
>I am doing some research into the disappearance of the princes in
>the tower and I was wondering if anyone could recommend any books or
>other material that may help.
>
>Just to explain, I do voluntary work at Southwark Cathedral and
>occasionally at Westminster Abbey and I am looking for as an
>objective view as possible so that when I give talks and information
>to visitors, I can let them make up their own minds.
>
>I would also like to look more deeply into what happened for
>personal reasons as I was brought up to believe the story handed
>down by the 'Tudors' but after listening to differing historians
>views, I am starting to question what actually happened.
>
>I appreciate that this probably a saw subject matter and I hope that
>I have not offended anyone by bringing the matter up but if anyone
>would like to make some suggestions I would be extremely grateful.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Lynn.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 4400 (20090906) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com

Lynn
I'd suggest Paul Murray Kendall, and Annette Carson, but with
comprehensive sections on the problem, though of course Annette's
completely up to date with the research.
Paul

On 6 Sep 2009, at 15:23, apexgadgets wrote:

> I am doing some research into the disappearance of the princes in
> the tower and I was wondering if anyone could recommend any books
> or other material that may help.
>
> Just to explain, I do voluntary work at Southwark Cathedral and
> occasionally at Westminster Abbey and I am looking for as an
> objective view as possible so that when I give talks and
> information to visitors, I can let them make up their own minds.
>
> I would also like to look more deeply into what happened for
> personal reasons as I was brought up to believe the story handed
> down by the 'Tudors' but after listening to differing historians
> views, I am starting to question what actually happened.
>
> I appreciate that this probably a saw subject matter and I hope
> that I have not offended anyone by bringing the matter up but if
> anyone would like to make some suggestions I would be extremely
> grateful.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Lynn.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Hi Lynn,

In addition to the references cited, I'd like to add "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields. I like this book a lot for this aspect because it concentrates on the evidence, or lack thereof, about the supposed murder of the princes. Also, if you can get a copy of Armstrong's translation of Mancini's "Usurpatation of Richard III" (unless you're able to read the original Latin--I can't) and Croyland Chronicle, you'll find neither states that the princes were killed. The American branch website has a reprint of Croyland--index at http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/index.html . Interestingly, Henry VII never directly accused Richard of murdering the princes and I think that if Richard had had them killed, he would have displayed their bodies.

I would also like to point out that there is no mention in contemporaneous documents that Edward V had a bone disease, and yet the jaw bone of the older skeleton found in the tower showed bone degeneration in the jaw. I think the "myth" (my word) that Edward suffered from a bone disease was a bit of reverse engineering that came about after the bones were discovered.

Have fun reading.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lynn,
>
> In addition to the references cited, I'd like to add "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields.


Hi Lynn there has been some good suggestions here..equally important is NOT what to read....I I dont think many would contradict me on here when I place Michael Hicks' "Anne Neville" at the top of the list of "Dont even bother" " lol lol
eileen

I like this book a lot for this aspect because it concentrates on the evidence, or lack thereof, about the supposed murder of the princes. Also, if you can get a copy of Armstrong's translation of Mancini's "Usurpatation of Richard III" (unless you're able to read the original Latin--I can't) and Croyland Chronicle, you'll find neither states that the princes were killed. The American branch website has a reprint of Croyland--index at http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/index.html . Interestingly, Henry VII never directly accused Richard of murdering the princes and I think that if Richard had had them killed, he would have displayed their bodies.
>
> I would also like to point out that there is no mention in contemporaneous documents that Edward V had a bone disease, and yet the jaw bone of the older skeleton found in the tower showed bone degeneration in the jaw. I think the "myth" (my word) that Edward suffered from a bone disease was a bit of reverse engineering that came about after the bones were discovered.
>
> Have fun reading.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>

--- In , "ebatesparrot" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lynn,
> >
> > In addition to the references cited, I'd like to add "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields.
>
>
> Hi Lynn there has been some good suggestions here..equally important is NOT what to read....I I dont think many would contradict me on here when I place Michael Hicks' "Anne Neville" at the top of the list of "Dont even bother" " lol lol
> eileen


On the contrary...I think it's important to read all the books that are commonly used as references on Richard, whether one agrees with them or not. "Know thy enemy" and all that.

Katy

I'm with Joan on the "Royal Blood' recommendation. There's also a
little book by V.B.Lamb which may not be that easy to get hold of but
is worth it. It's called "The Betrayal of Richard III".
Not just the bone disease is a myth in my book, but the entire Tudor
idea of murder most foul is myth. Let's not forget there are also
pigs bones in amongst those in the Abbey!
Could be Roman.
Good luck clawing your way through all the brambles that surround the
magic palace of Tudor myth!
Paul

On 7 Sep 2009, at 01:38, u2nohoo wrote:

> Hi Lynn,
>
> In addition to the references cited, I'd like to add "Royal Blood"
> by Bertram Fields. I like this book a lot for this aspect because
> it concentrates on the evidence, or lack thereof, about the
> supposed murder of the princes. Also, if you can get a copy of
> Armstrong's translation of Mancini's "Usurpatation of Richard
> III" (unless you're able to read the original Latin--I can't) and
> Croyland Chronicle, you'll find neither states that the princes
> were killed. The American branch website has a reprint of Croyland--
> index at http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/index.html .
> Interestingly, Henry VII never directly accused Richard of
> murdering the princes and I think that if Richard had had them
> killed, he would have displayed their bodies.
>
> I would also like to point out that there is no mention in
> contemporaneous documents that Edward V had a bone disease, and yet
> the jaw bone of the older skeleton found in the tower showed bone
> degeneration in the jaw. I think the "myth" (my word) that Edward
> suffered from a bone disease was a bit of reverse engineering that
> came about after the bones were discovered.
>
> Have fun reading.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Hi Lynn,

For a good overview, I would check the websites of the Richard III
Society in England (www.richardiii.net <http://www.richardiii.net/> ), the
American Branch ( www.r3.org <http://www.r3.org/> ) and the Canadian Branch
(www.home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/).

these websites have condensed a lot of info and have bibliographies as well.

Thanks for being open-minded about Richard and the disappearance (
notice, I did not say "murder", of the Princes).



L.M.L.,

Janet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm with Joan on the "Royal Blood' recommendation. There's also a
> little book by V.B.Lamb which may not be that easy to get hold of but
> is worth it. It's called "The Betrayal of Richard III".
> Not just the bone disease is a myth in my book, but the entire Tudor
> idea of murder most foul is myth. Let's not forget there are also
> pigs bones in amongst those in the Abbey!
> Could be Roman.


That has always been my take on the bones, for what it's worth -- that they represent a pre-Roman wall/foundation sacrifice. The site on which the White Tower stands is a strategic one, and here has been a fortress there since time immemorial. One existed there when the Romans came along, and they built on top of that structure, incorporating it. And of all structures, a fortress would be most likely to need and benefit from supernatural protection.

In fact, those bones could have been discovered more than once before they were declared royal and placed in the urn. If they represented a pre-Roman foundation sacrifice that was turned up later, it would seem that the only logical thing to do with them would be to reinter them near where they were found. The Romans considered such sacrifices a repugnant barbarian practice but apparently superstitiously tried to avoid disturbing them. Later, since the bones, considering the depth at which they must have been buried (see Annette Carson's thorough and intelligent discussion of this point) they would have been obviously pagan and thus ineligible for reburial in a Christian cemetary.

Possibly an earlier discovery of the bones this could account for the remains of a wooden box and/or fabric that some accounts mention, though those details may have been made up simply to bolster the idea that these were royal remains. Pagan or not, the bones were human, and it would have been a matter of simple respect, is not nervous superstitiousness, to wrap them up or place them in a box rather than simply throw them back into a hole.

Katy

Hi Lynn,

I totally agree with Katy - the bones were found too deep, and under buildings already there in the 15th century, so must belong to a much earlier period. I would also highly recommend Annette Carson's summary in'The Maligned King', and Helen Maurer's excellent articles, which you can find a link to in the discussion on the Princes on the website of the UK Richard III Society. The osteo-archaeologist Bill White also gave a fascinating talk on the subject at the 2008 UK Society conference, which was afterwards published in the Ricardian Bulletin - well worthwhile, if you can get hold of a copy. Apart from the obvious archaeologist's point that the depth at which these remains were found doesn't tally with the date of the Princes' disappearance, he notes that the disagreements between experts as to the likely age of the younger child stem mainly from the fact that different bones are suggesting different things. He therefore queries whether in fact the bones in the urn may not in fact be comprised of remains from three or more bodies.

I agree with everybody else's suggestions, in fact: Fields and Kendall (Kendall does have a section on the Bones in the appendices). And I would agree you should read the bad books - Jenkins and Weir - too, so as to be prepared for anyone who has read and believed them. But I'd read them last, because only then will you be able to spot the flaws. I'd also throw in Pollard's 'Richard III and the Princes in the Tower,' Audrey Williamson's 'Mystery of the Princes,' and maybe Ann Wroe's book on Perkin Warbeck.

Happy reading!

Marie

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with Joan on the "Royal Blood' recommendation. There's also a
> > little book by V.B.Lamb which may not be that easy to get hold of but
> > is worth it. It's called "The Betrayal of Richard III".
> > Not just the bone disease is a myth in my book, but the entire Tudor
> > idea of murder most foul is myth. Let's not forget there are also
> > pigs bones in amongst those in the Abbey!
> > Could be Roman.
>
>
> That has always been my take on the bones, for what it's worth -- that they represent a pre-Roman wall/foundation sacrifice. The site on which the White Tower stands is a strategic one, and here has been a fortress there since time immemorial. One existed there when the Romans came along, and they built on top of that structure, incorporating it. And of all structures, a fortress would be most likely to need and benefit from supernatural protection.
>
> In fact, those bones could have been discovered more than once before they were declared royal and placed in the urn. If they represented a pre-Roman foundation sacrifice that was turned up later, it would seem that the only logical thing to do with them would be to reinter them near where they were found. The Romans considered such sacrifices a repugnant barbarian practice but apparently superstitiously tried to avoid disturbing them. Later, since the bones, considering the depth at which they must have been buried (see Annette Carson's thorough and intelligent discussion of this point) they would have been obviously pagan and thus ineligible for reburial in a Christian cemetary.
>
> Possibly an earlier discovery of the bones this could account for the remains of a wooden box and/or fabric that some accounts mention, though those details may have been made up simply to bolster the idea that these were royal remains. Pagan or not, the bones were human, and it would have been a matter of simple respect, is not nervous superstitiousness, to wrap them up or place them in a box rather than simply throw them back into a hole.
>
> Katy
>

mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote: "...The osteo-archaeologist Bill White also gave a fascinating talk on the subject at the 2008 UK Society conference, which was afterwards published in the Ricardian Bulletin..."

Do you happen to know which Bulletin it's in? I went through the 2008 Bulletins and even the Journal, but I couldn't find the article. It's entirely possible I elided over his name, though.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
The osteo-archaeologist Bill White also gave a fascinating talk on the subject at the 2008 UK Society conference, which was afterwards published in the Ricardian Bulletin - well worthwhile, if you can get hold of a copy. Apart from the obvious archaeologist's point that the depth at which these remains were found doesn't tally with the date of the Princes' disappearance, he notes that the disagreements between experts as to the likely age of the younger child stem mainly from the fact that different bones are suggesting different things. He therefore queries whether in fact the bones in the urn may not in fact be comprised of remains from three or more bodies.


I believe Bill White makes the observation, or at least the inference, that the diseased jaw bone of one of the individuals whose partial skeleton reside in the urn gibes with the idea of a foundation sacrifice.

A child with that degree of osteomyelitis of the jaw, with loss of numerous teeth, would have been very ill, visibly, fatally so. (Which does not agree with any description of either of Edward's sons.) It would have been clear that child would never live to grow up and be an asset to its community. It would have been expendable as a sacrifice, and being chosen as sacrifice might be viewed as the best thing that could happen to it, in this world or the next. A quick death versus a slow painful one.

Katy

Hi Joan,

Yes, you must have passed over it. I'm afraid I can't recall which issue it was, but the conference was May [?] 2008, the Princes in the Tower was the overall subject, and the papers given at it were featured in the following few Bulletins (not the Ricardian), one or two per issue. Bill White's article may have been paired up with Peter Hammond's on the other bones reputedly found in the Tower, possibly under the heading "Remains". I do know that Bill White's article was accompanied by a photograph of him giving the talk and holding a model skull.

Hope you find it this time.

Marie



--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote: "...The osteo-archaeologist Bill White also gave a fascinating talk on the subject at the 2008 UK Society conference, which was afterwards published in the Ricardian Bulletin..."
>
> Do you happen to know which Bulletin it's in? I went through the 2008 Bulletins and even the Journal, but I couldn't find the article. It's entirely possible I elided over his name, though.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>

On similar lines it has been conclusively proved recently that the
remains that got Crippen hanged for the murder of his wife were not
even those of a woman!
Put not your trust in remains not properly tested!
Paul




On 7 Sep 2009, at 20:53, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> Hi Lynn,
>
> I totally agree with Katy - the bones were found too deep, and
> under buildings already there in the 15th century, so must belong
> to a much earlier period. I would also highly recommend Annette
> Carson's summary in'The Maligned King', and Helen Maurer's
> excellent articles, which you can find a link to in the discussion
> on the Princes on the website of the UK Richard III Society. The
> osteo-archaeologist Bill White also gave a fascinating talk on the
> subject at the 2008 UK Society conference, which was afterwards
> published in the Ricardian Bulletin - well worthwhile, if you can
> get hold of a copy. Apart from the obvious archaeologist's point
> that the depth at which these remains were found doesn't tally with
> the date of the Princes' disappearance, he notes that the
> disagreements between experts as to the likely age of the younger
> child stem mainly from the fact that different bones are suggesting
> different things. He therefore queries whether in fact the bones in
> the urn may not in fact be comprised of remains from three or more
> bodies.
>
> I agree with everybody else's suggestions, in fact: Fields and
> Kendall (Kendall does have a section on the Bones in the
> appendices). And I would agree you should read the bad books -
> Jenkins and Weir - too, so as to be prepared for anyone who has
> read and believed them. But I'd read them last, because only then
> will you be able to spot the flaws. I'd also throw in Pollard's
> 'Richard III and the Princes in the Tower,' Audrey Williamson's
> 'Mystery of the Princes,' and maybe Ann Wroe's book on Perkin Warbeck.
>
> Happy reading!
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty"
> <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm with Joan on the "Royal Blood' recommendation. There's also a
>>> little book by V.B.Lamb which may not be that easy to get hold of
>>> but
>>> is worth it. It's called "The Betrayal of Richard III".
>>> Not just the bone disease is a myth in my book, but the entire Tudor
>>> idea of murder most foul is myth. Let's not forget there are also
>>> pigs bones in amongst those in the Abbey!
>>> Could be Roman.
>>
>>
>> That has always been my take on the bones, for what it's worth --
>> that they represent a pre-Roman wall/foundation sacrifice. The
>> site on which the White Tower stands is a strategic one, and here
>> has been a fortress there since time immemorial. One existed
>> there when the Romans came along, and they built on top of that
>> structure, incorporating it. And of all structures, a fortress
>> would be most likely to need and benefit from supernatural
>> protection.
>>
>> In fact, those bones could have been discovered more than once
>> before they were declared royal and placed in the urn. If they
>> represented a pre-Roman foundation sacrifice that was turned up
>> later, it would seem that the only logical thing to do with them
>> would be to reinter them near where they were found. The Romans
>> considered such sacrifices a repugnant barbarian practice but
>> apparently superstitiously tried to avoid disturbing them.
>> Later, since the bones, considering the depth at which they must
>> have been buried (see Annette Carson's thorough and intelligent
>> discussion of this point) they would have been obviously pagan and
>> thus ineligible for reburial in a Christian cemetary.
>>
>> Possibly an earlier discovery of the bones this could account for
>> the remains of a wooden box and/or fabric that some accounts
>> mention, though those details may have been made up simply to
>> bolster the idea that these were royal remains. Pagan or not, the
>> bones were human, and it would have been a matter of simple
>> respect, is not nervous superstitiousness, to wrap them up or
>> place them in a box rather than simply throw them back into a hole.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Joan S. asked" Do you happen to know which Bulletin it's in? I went through
the 2008 Bulletins and even the Journal, but I couldn't find the article.
It's entirely possible I elided over his name, though.



The article by Helen Maurer in The Ricardain was in the December 1990 issue.
It was continued in the next issue. Excellent and very cogent explanation
of the whole thing!!



L.M.L.,

Janet

Oops! Sorry. I answered the wrong inquiry. Still a great article by Helen
Maurer, however :-)



Janet

Found it! It's in the Spring 2009 Bulletin article: "Proceedings of the Triennial Conference 2008: Part 4: 'The Remains'". White's contribution begins on p23.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> Yes, you must have passed over it. I'm afraid I can't recall which issue it was, but the conference was May [?] 2008, the Princes in the Tower was the overall subject, and the papers given at it were featured in the following few Bulletins (not the Ricardian), one or two per issue. Bill White's article may have been paired up with Peter Hammond's on the other bones reputedly found in the Tower, possibly under the heading "Remains". I do know that Bill White's article was accompanied by a photograph of him giving the talk and holding a model skull.
>
> Hope you find it this time.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@> wrote:
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote: "...The osteo-archaeologist Bill White also gave a fascinating talk on the subject at the 2008 UK Society conference, which was afterwards published in the Ricardian Bulletin..."
> >
> > Do you happen to know which Bulletin it's in? I went through the 2008 Bulletins and even the Journal, but I couldn't find the article. It's entirely possible I elided over his name, though.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> >
>

www.bookfinder.com has lamb's book. i just ordered a copy. thanks for the lead paul.
 
i find and buy a lot of books for research via this source.
roslyn

--- On Mon, 9/7/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Hi ya!
To:
Received: Monday, September 7, 2009, 12:04 PM


 



I'm with Joan on the "Royal Blood' recommendation. There's also a
little book by V.B.Lamb which may not be that easy to get hold of but
is worth it. It's called "The Betrayal of Richard III".
Not just the bone disease is a myth in my book, but the entire Tudor
idea of murder most foul is myth. Let's not forget there are also
pigs bones in amongst those in the Abbey!
Could be Roman.
Good luck clawing your way through all the brambles that surround the
magic palace of Tudor myth!
Paul

On 7 Sep 2009, at 01:38, u2nohoo wrote:

> Hi Lynn,
>
> In addition to the references cited, I'd like to add "Royal Blood"
> by Bertram Fields. I like this book a lot for this aspect because
> it concentrates on the evidence, or lack thereof, about the
> supposed murder of the princes. Also, if you can get a copy of
> Armstrong's translation of Mancini's "Usurpatation of Richard
> III" (unless you're able to read the original Latin--I can't) and
> Croyland Chronicle, you'll find neither states that the princes
> were killed. The American branch website has a reprint of Croyland--
> index at http://www.r3. org/bookcase/ croyland/ index.html .
> Interestingly, Henry VII never directly accused Richard of
> murdering the princes and I think that if Richard had had them
> killed, he would have displayed their bodies.
>
> I would also like to point out that there is no mention in
> contemporaneous documents that Edward V had a bone disease, and yet
> the jaw bone of the older skeleton found in the tower showed bone
> degeneration in the jaw. I think the "myth" (my word) that Edward
> suffered from a bone disease was a bit of reverse engineering that
> came about after the bones were discovered.
>
> Have fun reading.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Hope it wasn't too expensive!
And that you enjoy it!
Paul

On 8 Sep 2009, at 22:52, fayre rose wrote:

> www.bookfinder.com has lamb's book. i just ordered a copy. thanks
> for the lead paul.
>
> i find and buy a lot of books for research via this source.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 9/7/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi ya!
> To:
> Received: Monday, September 7, 2009, 12:04 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm with Joan on the "Royal Blood' recommendation. There's also a
> little book by V.B.Lamb which may not be that easy to get hold of but
> is worth it. It's called "The Betrayal of Richard III".
> Not just the bone disease is a myth in my book, but the entire Tudor
> idea of murder most foul is myth. Let's not forget there are also
> pigs bones in amongst those in the Abbey!
> Could be Roman.
> Good luck clawing your way through all the brambles that surround the
> magic palace of Tudor myth!
> Paul
>
> On 7 Sep 2009, at 01:38, u2nohoo wrote:
>
>> Hi Lynn,
>>
>> In addition to the references cited, I'd like to add "Royal Blood"
>> by Bertram Fields. I like this book a lot for this aspect because
>> it concentrates on the evidence, or lack thereof, about the
>> supposed murder of the princes. Also, if you can get a copy of
>> Armstrong's translation of Mancini's "Usurpatation of Richard
>> III" (unless you're able to read the original Latin--I can't) and
>> Croyland Chronicle, you'll find neither states that the princes
>> were killed. The American branch website has a reprint of Croyland--
>> index at http://www.r3. org/bookcase/ croyland/ index.html .
>> Interestingly, Henry VII never directly accused Richard of
>> murdering the princes and I think that if Richard had had them
>> killed, he would have displayed their bodies.
>>
>> I would also like to point out that there is no mention in
>> contemporaneous documents that Edward V had a bone disease, and yet
>> the jaw bone of the older skeleton found in the tower showed bone
>> degeneration in the jaw. I think the "myth" (my word) that Edward
>> suffered from a bone disease was a bit of reverse engineering that
>> came about after the bones were discovered.
>>
>> Have fun reading.
>>
>> Joan
>> ---
>> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
>> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
>> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet