Stained glass portraits and bones

Dear Carol and Christine,
Apols if this duplicates: Yahoo seems to have swallowed a couple of
my posts.

> I'm a bit confused. You're not equating the Tower jaws with the
> "princes,"
> right? But how can anyone prove a negative (that neither "prince"
> had a jaw
> disease)? There's no documentation of any jaw disease that we know
> of, but
> hardly anyone wrote anything on the younger boy,

Indeed. There is little documentation on them at all. Carbon-14
dating and DNA are the only things that would work: the chances are
that these bones may be too old, from their position, and their sex
is unclear. I think it's a pity the ones found in the early 17C,
walled up, were lost: they sound more promising from their location,
but were not examined very thoroughly.

> http://image53.webshots.com/
> 553/1/86/4/2670186040094942475tmouxi_ph.jpg
> But not a good angle, though you can see there are lots of daughters.
> The boys get a section each.

Unfortunately, as said previously, these are inadequate for facial
comparisons. The parents' portraits are quite well done, but the
children are far more stereotyped. (Ditto the surviving bits of the
window at Little Malvern.) I posted a scan to Photo Albums the other
day. Also, the window was restored, and parts replaced, in early 20C:
the original head of one of the girls (possibly Cecily) was bought by
Sir William Burrell and is now in the Burrell Collection Museum here
in Glasgow. I'm not sure how many of the heads are original.
There are, quite simply, *no* good-quality images of the boys which
could be used for facial comparison. The MS representations are also
highly stylised, e.g. in the picture of Rivers presenting his book to
the family.
best wishes,
Doc M