Circumstances?
Circumstances?
2010-08-23 09:33:48
I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 11:37:16
Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
Richard G
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
>
> With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
>
> History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
>
If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
Richard G
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
>
> With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
>
> History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 13:00:28
What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
Regards
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
>
> If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> >
> > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> >
> > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> >
>
However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
Regards
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
>
> If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> >
> > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> >
> > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 14:29:39
Paul,
The Tydder needed both boys to be dead, or thought of as dead. If they were (or thought) dead then their sister Elizabeth was Edward IV's heir and he could gain by marrying - and subsequently legitimising - her. Were they alive, legitimising her would legitimise them and create two rivals for his throne.
Civil partnerships were NOT a feature of C15 life in England.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
Regards
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
>
> If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> >
> > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> >
> > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> >
>
The Tydder needed both boys to be dead, or thought of as dead. If they were (or thought) dead then their sister Elizabeth was Edward IV's heir and he could gain by marrying - and subsequently legitimising - her. Were they alive, legitimising her would legitimise them and create two rivals for his throne.
Civil partnerships were NOT a feature of C15 life in England.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
Regards
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
>
> If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> >
> > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> >
> > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 15:27:27
Understood Stephen, but that wasn`t really the point I was trying to make in my comments.
One of the many reasons and arguments that Ricardians (or pro-Richard arguers) have put forward to debunk the Tudor myths is that Richard was loyal, upright, brave, and had all the noble attributes that a king should have, and so to arrange murder of children would be against his character and nature. I`m trying to explore the possibilty, given the times and situations, that perhaps this wasn`t necessarily so.
Paul.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> The Tydder needed both boys to be dead, or thought of as dead. If they were (or thought) dead then their sister Elizabeth was Edward IV's heir and he could gain by marrying - and subsequently legitimising - her. Were they alive, legitimising her would legitimise them and create two rivals for his throne.
>
> Civil partnerships were NOT a feature of C15 life in England.
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Circumstances?
>
>
>
> What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
>
> However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
> Regards
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> >
> > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> > >
> > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > >
> > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
One of the many reasons and arguments that Ricardians (or pro-Richard arguers) have put forward to debunk the Tudor myths is that Richard was loyal, upright, brave, and had all the noble attributes that a king should have, and so to arrange murder of children would be against his character and nature. I`m trying to explore the possibilty, given the times and situations, that perhaps this wasn`t necessarily so.
Paul.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> The Tydder needed both boys to be dead, or thought of as dead. If they were (or thought) dead then their sister Elizabeth was Edward IV's heir and he could gain by marrying - and subsequently legitimising - her. Were they alive, legitimising her would legitimise them and create two rivals for his throne.
>
> Civil partnerships were NOT a feature of C15 life in England.
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Circumstances?
>
>
>
> What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
>
> However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
> Regards
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> >
> > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> > >
> > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > >
> > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 15:38:24
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
peculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
>
> However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes.
The thing is -- leaving aside whether he could have done away with the boys, and even whether he should have -- if it was important for them to be dead, then it was important for them to be known to be dead.
If he had wanted them dead for some reason, they could have been done away with in some way that didn't leave obvious marks, given a nice funeral with their bodies on view, and that would have been that.
Having them simply disappear did Richard, and Henry Tudor after him, no good at all and just left the door open for pretenders to pop up for the next several decades.
There was no good reason for Richard to want to do away with the boys, though. By the time they were last seen, he had already been crowned with the approval of Parliament.
Katy
peculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
>
> However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes.
The thing is -- leaving aside whether he could have done away with the boys, and even whether he should have -- if it was important for them to be dead, then it was important for them to be known to be dead.
If he had wanted them dead for some reason, they could have been done away with in some way that didn't leave obvious marks, given a nice funeral with their bodies on view, and that would have been that.
Having them simply disappear did Richard, and Henry Tudor after him, no good at all and just left the door open for pretenders to pop up for the next several decades.
There was no good reason for Richard to want to do away with the boys, though. By the time they were last seen, he had already been crowned with the approval of Parliament.
Katy
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 15:44:52
Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone with a rival claim.
Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham took the secret to his grave.
About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
Richard G
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
>
> However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
> Regards
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> >
> > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> > >
> > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > >
> > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> > >
> >
>
The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone with a rival claim.
Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham took the secret to his grave.
About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
Richard G
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
>
> However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
> Regards
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> >
> > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> > >
> > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > >
> > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 16:12:13
Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there, and why?
The plot thickens. :-)
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
>
> The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone with a rival claim.
>
> Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
>
> One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham took the secret to his grave.
>
> About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> >
> > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
> > Regards
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > >
> > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> > > >
> > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > >
> > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
The plot thickens. :-)
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
>
> The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone with a rival claim.
>
> Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
>
> One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham took the secret to his grave.
>
> About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> >
> > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard. This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only speculation to work with.
> > Regards
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard. There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > >
> > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead, then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if, how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them murdered.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> > > >
> > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > >
> > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 16:38:19
Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
placed there after the fact?
According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
official position that the bones are those of princes.
Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
--- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
and why?
> The plot thickens. :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
wrote:
> >
> > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> >
> > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
with a rival claim.
> >
> > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> >
> > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
took the secret to his grave.
> >
> > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > >
> > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
(alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
speculation to work with.
> > > Regards
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > >
> > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
murdered.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
fulfil an ambition.
> > > > >
> > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > >
> > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
murderer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
placed there after the fact?
According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
official position that the bones are those of princes.
Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
--- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
and why?
> The plot thickens. :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
wrote:
> >
> > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> >
> > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
with a rival claim.
> >
> > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> >
> > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
took the secret to his grave.
> >
> > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > >
> > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
(alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
speculation to work with.
> > > Regards
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > >
> > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
murdered.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
fulfil an ambition.
> > > > >
> > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > >
> > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
murderer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 17:02:00
Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
>
> As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> placed there after the fact?
>
> According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> official position that the bones are those of princes.
>
> Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> and why?
> > The plot thickens. :-)
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > >
> > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> with a rival claim.
> > >
> > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > >
> > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> took the secret to his grave.
> > >
> > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > >
> > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> speculation to work with.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> murdered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> murderer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
>
> As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> placed there after the fact?
>
> According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> official position that the bones are those of princes.
>
> Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> and why?
> > The plot thickens. :-)
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > >
> > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> with a rival claim.
> > >
> > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > >
> > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> took the secret to his grave.
> > >
> > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > >
> > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> speculation to work with.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> murdered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> murderer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 17:33:52
Are the graves of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville still undisturbed ? They would seem the obvious ones to match DNA against. Failing that, their sister Elizabeth who I think is still buried in Westminster Abbey along with Tydder.
Of course, if Edward IV's DNA was examined, the temptation to check it against an earlier Plantagenet to prove he was the son of Richard of York would be strong.....
Richard G
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
> >
> > As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> > rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> > the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> > mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> > they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> > placed there after the fact?
> >
> > According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> > significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> > likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> > through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> > was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> > engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> > pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> > Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> > official position that the bones are those of princes.
> >
> > Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> > such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> > establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> > found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> > at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> > indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> > bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> > and why?
> > > The plot thickens. :-)
> > >
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> > princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> > arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> > to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> > death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> > made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> > more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> > an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> > melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > > >
> > > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> > the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> > arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> > the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> > with a rival claim.
> > > >
> > > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> > brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> > seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> > on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> > because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > > >
> > > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> > the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> > doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> > would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> > safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> > execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> > have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> > his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> > Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> > took the secret to his grave.
> > > >
> > > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> > forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> > that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> > whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> > the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> > weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> > again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> > was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> > be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> > execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> > rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> > thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> > whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > > >
> > > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> > many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> > etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> > (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> > indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> > think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> > decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> > This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> > murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> > surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> > finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> > which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> > events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> > history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> > speculation to work with.
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Paul.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Richard"
> > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> > despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> > There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> > merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> > then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> > applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> > suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> > how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> > Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> > murdered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> > because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> > fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> > character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> > fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> > certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> > in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> > active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> > nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> > has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> > seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> > been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> > happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> > murderer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Of course, if Edward IV's DNA was examined, the temptation to check it against an earlier Plantagenet to prove he was the son of Richard of York would be strong.....
Richard G
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
> >
> > As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> > rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> > the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> > mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> > they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> > placed there after the fact?
> >
> > According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> > significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> > likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> > through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> > was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> > engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> > pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> > Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> > official position that the bones are those of princes.
> >
> > Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> > such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> > establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> > found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> > at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> > indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> > bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> > and why?
> > > The plot thickens. :-)
> > >
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> > princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> > arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> > to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> > death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> > made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> > more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> > an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> > melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > > >
> > > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> > the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> > arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> > the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> > with a rival claim.
> > > >
> > > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> > brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> > seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> > on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> > because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > > >
> > > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> > the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> > doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> > would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> > safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> > execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> > have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> > his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> > Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> > took the secret to his grave.
> > > >
> > > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> > forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> > that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> > whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> > the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> > weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> > again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> > was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> > be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> > execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> > rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> > thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> > whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > > >
> > > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> > many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> > etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> > (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> > indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> > think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> > decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> > This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> > murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> > surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> > finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> > which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> > events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> > history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> > speculation to work with.
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Paul.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Richard"
> > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> > despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> > There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> > merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> > then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> > applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> > suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> > how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> > Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> > murdered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> > because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> > fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> > character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> > fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> > certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> > in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> > active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> > nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> > has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> > seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> > been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> > happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> > murderer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 17:39:30
John Ashdown-Hill is already investigating this. He has found an old lady in Canada who has donated some mDNA. He has identified the Worcesters as Beaufort male-line relatives but they are less helpful.
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
>
> As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> placed there after the fact?
>
> According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> official position that the bones are those of princes.
>
> Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> and why?
> > The plot thickens. :-)
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > >
> > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> with a rival claim.
> > >
> > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > >
> > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> took the secret to his grave.
> > >
> > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > >
> > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> speculation to work with.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> murdered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> murderer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
>
> As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> placed there after the fact?
>
> According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> official position that the bones are those of princes.
>
> Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> and why?
> > The plot thickens. :-)
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > >
> > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> with a rival claim.
> > >
> > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > >
> > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> took the secret to his grave.
> > >
> > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > >
> > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> speculation to work with.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> murdered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> murderer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 18:29:24
Don`t know how degraded the DNA would be, hence it`s possible that only a mitochondrial DNA process could be used. As far as I`m aware mitochondrial DNA is only carried in the female line, so in effect it may not suggest that E4 was Richard of York`s son. Just that E4 was the son of Cecily, so the Archer would still be in the picture. Don`t know about Queen EW`s grave.
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Are the graves of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville still undisturbed ? They would seem the obvious ones to match DNA against. Failing that, their sister Elizabeth who I think is still buried in Westminster Abbey along with Tydder.
>
> Of course, if Edward IV's DNA was examined, the temptation to check it against an earlier Plantagenet to prove he was the son of Richard of York would be strong.....
>
> Richard G
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
> > >
> > > As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> > > rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> > > the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> > > mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> > > they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> > > placed there after the fact?
> > >
> > > According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> > > significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> > > likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> > > through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> > > was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> > > engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> > > pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> > > Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> > > official position that the bones are those of princes.
> > >
> > > Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> > > such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> > > establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> > > found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> > > at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> > > indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> > > bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> > > and why?
> > > > The plot thickens. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> > > princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> > > arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> > > to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> > > death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> > > made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> > > more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> > > an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> > > melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> > > the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> > > arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> > > the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> > > with a rival claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> > > brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> > > seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> > > on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> > > because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > > > >
> > > > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> > > the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> > > doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> > > would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> > > safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> > > execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> > > have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> > > his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> > > Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> > > took the secret to his grave.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> > > forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> > > that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> > > whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> > > the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> > > weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> > > again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> > > was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> > > be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> > > execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> > > rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> > > thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> > > whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> > > many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> > > etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> > > (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> > > indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> > > think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> > > decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> > > This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> > > murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> > > surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> > > finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> > > which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> > > events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> > > history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> > > speculation to work with.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Paul.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Richard"
> > > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> > > despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> > > There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> > > merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> > > then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> > > applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> > > suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> > > how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> > > Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> > > murdered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> > > because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> > > fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> > > character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> > > fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> > > certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> > > in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> > > active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> > > nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> > > has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> > > seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> > > been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> > > happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> > > murderer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Paul.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Are the graves of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville still undisturbed ? They would seem the obvious ones to match DNA against. Failing that, their sister Elizabeth who I think is still buried in Westminster Abbey along with Tydder.
>
> Of course, if Edward IV's DNA was examined, the temptation to check it against an earlier Plantagenet to prove he was the son of Richard of York would be strong.....
>
> Richard G
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Mitochondrial DNA could be used, but who, or whose bones would it be checked against. The current royal family seems to be unwilling to become involved, so tombs would have to be opened or graves dug up to find matching DNA. All that even if the Abbey bones are released for examination, and that doesn`t appear to be forthcoming.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the Tower bones and what was found with them:
> > >
> > > As Bertram Fields points out in Royal Blood, the bones were left in a
> > > rubbish heap for four or so days after they were recovered, so that by
> > > the time they were collected, there were animal bones and other debris
> > > mixed in. Who's to say whether the velvet was found with the bones when
> > > they were originally exposed, part of the debris, or intentionally
> > > placed there after the fact?
> > >
> > > According to what I've read, the jaw of the older child shows
> > > significant bone deformation indicating a serious, long term, and most
> > > likely fatal bone disease. Contemporary reports and secondary sources up
> > > through Buck make no mention that Edward (or Richard for that matter)
> > > was sickly. On the contrary, the reports showed active, athletic boys
> > > engaging in strenuous activities. I think the condition of this jaw
> > > pretty much shows that the bones were not those of the princes.
> > > Personally, I think this alone should be enough to challenge the current
> > > official position that the bones are those of princes.
> > >
> > > Besides, it defies logic that such a hole could have been dug so deep in
> > > such a short time in such a busy place without anyone having noticed it.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if DNA could establish royalty Richard, but it could perhaps
> > > establish if the children interred were related. Admittedly velvet was
> > > found with the bones, but that doesn`t mean that the ones wearing them
> > > at the time of their death were indeed the Princes. It would only
> > > indicate royalty, or of noble birth, but without other evidence the
> > > bones could even belong to commoners. If they were, who put them there,
> > > and why?
> > > > The plot thickens. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Understood, Paul. I agree that if he had felt it necessary that the
> > > princes should die, then Richard would have been perfectly capable of
> > > arranging for their deaths. My point is that if it was to his advantage
> > > to do so, then it would have been logical to have made the fact of their
> > > death known - in the way that the deaths of Richard II and Henry VI were
> > > made known (although the deaths of Arthur of Brittany and Edward II were
> > > more mysterious). If Richard wanted them dead, then he could have staged
> > > an accident or a botched escape attempt in which they were killed in the
> > > melee and everyone would have known they were dead. Case closed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point about Richard's character is that his failure to deal with
> > > the likes of Morton and the Stanleys suggests that he was less likely to
> > > arrange to kill off those threatening his position than his successor on
> > > the throne, who one way or another managed to kill practically anyone
> > > with a rival claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > Queen Elizabeth Woodville's attitude to Richard (who had had her
> > > brother executed) and subsequently to Henry is worth studying - she
> > > seems to have become reconciled to Richard but later, with her daughter
> > > on the throne, she seems to have fallen out with Henry - some suggest
> > > because she had found out what he had done to her sons.
> > > > >
> > > > > One theory has Buckingham responsible for having them murdered in
> > > the Tower, and Richard feeling guilty that he had not prevented him from
> > > doing so - even if he had publicly blamed the dead Buckingham, Richard
> > > would have still have been ultimately responsible for not ensuring the
> > > safety of his nephews. Another theory involves why Buckingham, facing
> > > execution, pleaded to be allowed to meet Richard in person - he might
> > > have been going to use his knowledge of the princes' fate to bargain for
> > > his life. This theory meshes with the ones that reckon Richard (and
> > > Henry) genuinely did not know what became of the princes, as Buckingham
> > > took the secret to his grave.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the only way of taking the argument forward would be a new
> > > forensic examination of the bones found in Jacobean times - one assumes
> > > that it would be possible through DNA matching to establish for sure
> > > whether they are the princes; if they were then at least their deaths in
> > > the Tower would be confirmed, and possibly their ages at death; if they
> > > weren't then the speculation regarding their fate would be wide open
> > > again. Perhaps one day such an examination will take place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say may be so Richard, but as I understand it Hastings
> > > was put to death pretty quickly without a trial, although there seems to
> > > be divided opinion as to how immediately after the council meeting the
> > > execution was carried out. Buckingham was beheaded straight after the
> > > rebellion, but maybe that was the custom of the day. Didn`t the same
> > > thing happened to Richard`s father? and isn`t it only speculation on
> > > whether or not Rivers et al were given trials?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However the main point of my comments was about the attitude of
> > > many who seem to think that because of Richard`s hitherto good character
> > > etc., that he would have been incapable of arranging the murder
> > > (alleged) of the Princes. In the atmosphere of the time I think he would
> > > indeed have been capable. But I`m not saying that I think he did. I
> > > think there were others around who would be much more devisive, and
> > > decisive in such a matter, and willing to put the blame on to Richard.
> > > This is all of course purely on the assumption that the so-called tower
> > > murders took place at all. Like everyone else new to the intrigues
> > > surrounding the events of the late 15th century and beyond I`m still
> > > finding my way and trying to separate myself from the conventional story
> > > which has been told throughout the years, i.e. the Tudor version of
> > > events. Very difficult when all contemporary possibly pro-Richard
> > > history seems to have been wiped from existence, and there`s only
> > > speculation to work with.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Paul.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Richard"
> > > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rivers, Hastings and Buckingham were all fairly summarily
> > > despatched after being caught out involved in plots against Richard.
> > > There was no secrecy about any of their executions. Richard was too
> > > merciful for his own good as far as Morton and Stanley were concerned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it was in Richard's interests for the princes to be dead,
> > > then it was in his interests for them to be known to be dead. The same
> > > applies to Henry Tudor. Ergo the fact that their fate is a mystery
> > > suggests that neither Richard nor Henry had definite information of if,
> > > how and when they died. It took Henry VII until some fifteen years after
> > > Bosworth before he came up with a detailed story of Richard having them
> > > murdered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that
> > > because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and
> > > fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s
> > > character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to
> > > fulfil an ambition.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he
> > > certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker
> > > in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and
> > > active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his
> > > nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed,
> > > has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a
> > > seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he
> > > been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have
> > > happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a
> > > murderer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 18:31:13
Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
Subject: Circumstances?
I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
Subject: Circumstances?
I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 19:22:55
That`s quite a comment to answer Annette.
Firstly I`m not, nor ever have been, a member of the Richard III Society, nor have I any immediate plans of becoming one. I`m on the forum purely through interest in the subject matter and nothing else.
Perhaps the word "attitude" wasn`t the right word to use, but there is no doubt that one of the arguments used against the Tudor versions of events is that of Richard`s stalwart character. I refer you to the 1984 TV Trial, where Jeremy Potter did just that. Kendall certainly used the argument in his R3 biography, as did Tey in her Daughter of Time. I`ve read the same in other articles, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment.
I`ve never suggested at any time that Ricardians view Richard as "a paragon of virtue", or that they`re "blinkered fan-worshippers",
indeed I applaud the R3 Society in trying to right a possible wrong. However I have noticed on this forum even as recently as yesterday that certain events relating to the Ricardian calender are celebrated or commemorated. Doesn`t bother me in the slightest. As an ex-RAF man I celebrate Battle of Britain day. Neither was I trying to besmirch Richard`s name or character. Enough people have done that already. Just trying to put things into perspective in my own mind and relative to the times in which he lived.
Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
Thanks for your info Annette. I`m slowly getting into the swing of things.
Paul
--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
>
> It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
>
> Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
>
> In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
>
> In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
>
> So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
>
> My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
>
> If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
>
> For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> Subject: Circumstances?
>
>
>
> I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
>
> With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
>
> History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Firstly I`m not, nor ever have been, a member of the Richard III Society, nor have I any immediate plans of becoming one. I`m on the forum purely through interest in the subject matter and nothing else.
Perhaps the word "attitude" wasn`t the right word to use, but there is no doubt that one of the arguments used against the Tudor versions of events is that of Richard`s stalwart character. I refer you to the 1984 TV Trial, where Jeremy Potter did just that. Kendall certainly used the argument in his R3 biography, as did Tey in her Daughter of Time. I`ve read the same in other articles, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment.
I`ve never suggested at any time that Ricardians view Richard as "a paragon of virtue", or that they`re "blinkered fan-worshippers",
indeed I applaud the R3 Society in trying to right a possible wrong. However I have noticed on this forum even as recently as yesterday that certain events relating to the Ricardian calender are celebrated or commemorated. Doesn`t bother me in the slightest. As an ex-RAF man I celebrate Battle of Britain day. Neither was I trying to besmirch Richard`s name or character. Enough people have done that already. Just trying to put things into perspective in my own mind and relative to the times in which he lived.
Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
Thanks for your info Annette. I`m slowly getting into the swing of things.
Paul
--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
>
> It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
>
> Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
>
> In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
>
> In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
>
> So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
>
> My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
>
> If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
>
> For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> Subject: Circumstances?
>
>
>
> I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
>
> With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
>
> History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-23 21:28:35
Just to clarify - I didn't say that arguments about Richard's previous character were irrelevant - I asked who it was that said (quote) BECAUSE of his good character he COULDN'T have murdered. I'd need to know the page reference in Kendall before I'm convinced that is what he said. In fact, turning to his Appendix I about "Who murdered the 'Little Princes'?", I see the following on the second page: "It is very possible that King Richard is guilty of the crime." Josephine Tey wrote fiction, so that's a different kettle of fish.
Jeremy Potter gave Richard a character reference at the beginning of his testimony at the request of the counsel for the defence (Mr Dillon: "I asked Mr Richards about his character up to the death of Edward IV. What ... how would you put it?"). Having spoken of his opinion of Richard's character ("the last man that anyone would have expected to have killed Edward IV's sons"), Potter didn't say that it was because of his good character that he couldn't have committed the crime. He moved on to speak of facts and actions: Richard performing acts of fealty to Edward V, the difficulties encountered because of the north-south divide and the opposition of the Woodvilles, the fact that young Warwick was a potential rival but was treated well, and the constitutional position that although Edward IV's boys posed some kind of a threat, nevertheless Richard had become king while they were still alive. It was his opinion that they were more of an embarrassment to Tudor and Buckingham. Next he suggested that Buckingham had the opportunity to murder the boys, but that other stories circulated about their being smuggled abroad. And he brought up the reconciliation with Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York. And much, much more. So Potter's arguments dealt primarily with matters of evidence and record, and his observations on Richard's character merely answered counsel's opening question.
Richard's character is, as you subsequently say, just one of the many arguments people use to counteract Tudor mythology (which, by the way, found him guilty of a good deal more than just murdering Edward IV's sons!). But I would still dispute that many people say he couldn't have murdered because he had such a good character, which is the impression you said you'd got. That is something traditionalists accuse Ricardians of saying ("Richard was too honourable to have done such a thing", etc). And no, I never suggested that YOU were making such accusations! - The previous quote, and the one about the "quasi-religious cult", came directly from a recent book by historian David Hipshon.
What I'm getting at is that most members of the Society that hosts this forum are interested in much more about Richard III, his life and his times, than whether he exhibited high moral principles or whether he was a cad and a bounder. As a matter of interest I challenge anyone accurately to make such presumptions about members of today's royal family like Prince Philip or Prince Charles, even though they are alive and we're awash with information about them. Even better would be the analogy with our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, who treated many people abominably and held some views that people today find reprehensible. Interesting, maybe, but insignificant compared to who he was, when he lived and what he did.
Maybe if you get interested enough in Richard, you might feel it's worth joining the Society after all (you don't have to swear an oath to support him!). One thing you'll get for your membership is the ability to borrow stacks of books free of charge from the library by post, many of which are otherwise difficult to find. And VCRs and DVDs from the audio-visual library. So it'll certainly assist you in your researches.
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
That`s quite a comment to answer Annette.
Firstly I`m not, nor ever have been, a member of the Richard III Society, nor have I any immediate plans of becoming one. I`m on the forum purely through interest in the subject matter and nothing else.
Perhaps the word "attitude" wasn`t the right word to use, but there is no doubt that one of the arguments used against the Tudor versions of events is that of Richard`s stalwart character. I refer you to the 1984 TV Trial, where Jeremy Potter did just that. Kendall certainly used the argument in his R3 biography, as did Tey in her Daughter of Time. I`ve read the same in other articles, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment.
I`ve never suggested at any time that Ricardians view Richard as "a paragon of virtue", or that they`re "blinkered fan-worshippers",
indeed I applaud the R3 Society in trying to right a possible wrong. However I have noticed on this forum even as recently as yesterday that certain events relating to the Ricardian calender are celebrated or commemorated. Doesn`t bother me in the slightest. As an ex-RAF man I celebrate Battle of Britain day. Neither was I trying to besmirch Richard`s name or character. Enough people have done that already. Just trying to put things into perspective in my own mind and relative to the times in which he lived.
Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
Thanks for your info Annette. I`m slowly getting into the swing of things.
Paul
--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
>
> It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
>
> Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
>
> In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
>
> In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
>
> So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
>
> My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
>
> If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
>
> For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> Subject: Circumstances?
>
>
>
> I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
>
> With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
>
> History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeremy Potter gave Richard a character reference at the beginning of his testimony at the request of the counsel for the defence (Mr Dillon: "I asked Mr Richards about his character up to the death of Edward IV. What ... how would you put it?"). Having spoken of his opinion of Richard's character ("the last man that anyone would have expected to have killed Edward IV's sons"), Potter didn't say that it was because of his good character that he couldn't have committed the crime. He moved on to speak of facts and actions: Richard performing acts of fealty to Edward V, the difficulties encountered because of the north-south divide and the opposition of the Woodvilles, the fact that young Warwick was a potential rival but was treated well, and the constitutional position that although Edward IV's boys posed some kind of a threat, nevertheless Richard had become king while they were still alive. It was his opinion that they were more of an embarrassment to Tudor and Buckingham. Next he suggested that Buckingham had the opportunity to murder the boys, but that other stories circulated about their being smuggled abroad. And he brought up the reconciliation with Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York. And much, much more. So Potter's arguments dealt primarily with matters of evidence and record, and his observations on Richard's character merely answered counsel's opening question.
Richard's character is, as you subsequently say, just one of the many arguments people use to counteract Tudor mythology (which, by the way, found him guilty of a good deal more than just murdering Edward IV's sons!). But I would still dispute that many people say he couldn't have murdered because he had such a good character, which is the impression you said you'd got. That is something traditionalists accuse Ricardians of saying ("Richard was too honourable to have done such a thing", etc). And no, I never suggested that YOU were making such accusations! - The previous quote, and the one about the "quasi-religious cult", came directly from a recent book by historian David Hipshon.
What I'm getting at is that most members of the Society that hosts this forum are interested in much more about Richard III, his life and his times, than whether he exhibited high moral principles or whether he was a cad and a bounder. As a matter of interest I challenge anyone accurately to make such presumptions about members of today's royal family like Prince Philip or Prince Charles, even though they are alive and we're awash with information about them. Even better would be the analogy with our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, who treated many people abominably and held some views that people today find reprehensible. Interesting, maybe, but insignificant compared to who he was, when he lived and what he did.
Maybe if you get interested enough in Richard, you might feel it's worth joining the Society after all (you don't have to swear an oath to support him!). One thing you'll get for your membership is the ability to borrow stacks of books free of charge from the library by post, many of which are otherwise difficult to find. And VCRs and DVDs from the audio-visual library. So it'll certainly assist you in your researches.
----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
That`s quite a comment to answer Annette.
Firstly I`m not, nor ever have been, a member of the Richard III Society, nor have I any immediate plans of becoming one. I`m on the forum purely through interest in the subject matter and nothing else.
Perhaps the word "attitude" wasn`t the right word to use, but there is no doubt that one of the arguments used against the Tudor versions of events is that of Richard`s stalwart character. I refer you to the 1984 TV Trial, where Jeremy Potter did just that. Kendall certainly used the argument in his R3 biography, as did Tey in her Daughter of Time. I`ve read the same in other articles, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment.
I`ve never suggested at any time that Ricardians view Richard as "a paragon of virtue", or that they`re "blinkered fan-worshippers",
indeed I applaud the R3 Society in trying to right a possible wrong. However I have noticed on this forum even as recently as yesterday that certain events relating to the Ricardian calender are celebrated or commemorated. Doesn`t bother me in the slightest. As an ex-RAF man I celebrate Battle of Britain day. Neither was I trying to besmirch Richard`s name or character. Enough people have done that already. Just trying to put things into perspective in my own mind and relative to the times in which he lived.
Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
Thanks for your info Annette. I`m slowly getting into the swing of things.
Paul
--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
>
> It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
>
> Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
>
> In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
>
> In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
>
> So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
>
> My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
>
> If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
>
> For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> Subject: Circumstances?
>
>
>
> I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
>
> With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
>
> History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 02:20:10
I`d like to see a possible wrong righted of course, and Richard has probably been much maligned over the years, but really it`s the mystery itself which interests me. Personally Annette I couldn`t really give a damn whether Richard was innocent or guilty of anything, so I`ve no reason or wish to join the R3 Society except perhaps for the extra study material it can provide. Nor would I have the time to devote to it. However with all the academia the Society has at its fingertips the puzzle is no nearer to being solved than if it had all happened just a few years ago. As I said in one of my first posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than the internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address, hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have laptop, will travel". So you have me at a disadvantage. I heard Tey`s novel read in audio form when it was serialised on BBC radio. Kendall`s book I read some time ago and don`t have it with me, so no, I can`t give you chapter and verse. Any heavier research will have to wait until I return home. But you`ll all probably have the mystery solved by then, so I can turn my attention to the mysteries of Lizzie Borden and Jack the Ripper. :-)
Cheers,
Paul.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify - I didn't say that arguments about Richard's previous character were irrelevant - I asked who it was that said (quote) BECAUSE of his good character he COULDN'T have murdered. I'd need to know the page reference in Kendall before I'm convinced that is what he said. In fact, turning to his Appendix I about "Who murdered the 'Little Princes'?", I see the following on the second page: "It is very possible that King Richard is guilty of the crime." Josephine Tey wrote fiction, so that's a different kettle of fish.
>
> Jeremy Potter gave Richard a character reference at the beginning of his testimony at the request of the counsel for the defence (Mr Dillon: "I asked Mr Richards about his character up to the death of Edward IV. What ... how would you put it?"). Having spoken of his opinion of Richard's character ("the last man that anyone would have expected to have killed Edward IV's sons"), Potter didn't say that it was because of his good character that he couldn't have committed the crime. He moved on to speak of facts and actions: Richard performing acts of fealty to Edward V, the difficulties encountered because of the north-south divide and the opposition of the Woodvilles, the fact that young Warwick was a potential rival but was treated well, and the constitutional position that although Edward IV's boys posed some kind of a threat, nevertheless Richard had become king while they were still alive. It was his opinion that they were more of an embarrassment to Tudor and Buckingham. Next he suggested that Buckingham had the opportunity to murder the boys, but that other stories circulated about their being smuggled abroad. And he brought up the reconciliation with Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York. And much, much more. So Potter's arguments dealt primarily with matters of evidence and record, and his observations on Richard's character merely answered counsel's opening question.
>
> Richard's character is, as you subsequently say, just one of the many arguments people use to counteract Tudor mythology (which, by the way, found him guilty of a good deal more than just murdering Edward IV's sons!). But I would still dispute that many people say he couldn't have murdered because he had such a good character, which is the impression you said you'd got. That is something traditionalists accuse Ricardians of saying ("Richard was too honourable to have done such a thing", etc). And no, I never suggested that YOU were making such accusations! - The previous quote, and the one about the "quasi-religious cult", came directly from a recent book by historian David Hipshon.
>
> What I'm getting at is that most members of the Society that hosts this forum are interested in much more about Richard III, his life and his times, than whether he exhibited high moral principles or whether he was a cad and a bounder. As a matter of interest I challenge anyone accurately to make such presumptions about members of today's royal family like Prince Philip or Prince Charles, even though they are alive and we're awash with information about them. Even better would be the analogy with our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, who treated many people abominably and held some views that people today find reprehensible. Interesting, maybe, but insignificant compared to who he was, when he lived and what he did.
>
> Maybe if you get interested enough in Richard, you might feel it's worth joining the Society after all (you don't have to swear an oath to support him!). One thing you'll get for your membership is the ability to borrow stacks of books free of charge from the library by post, many of which are otherwise difficult to find. And VCRs and DVDs from the audio-visual library. So it'll certainly assist you in your researches.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Circumstances?
>
> That`s quite a comment to answer Annette.
>
> Firstly I`m not, nor ever have been, a member of the Richard III Society, nor have I any immediate plans of becoming one. I`m on the forum purely through interest in the subject matter and nothing else.
>
> Perhaps the word "attitude" wasn`t the right word to use, but there is no doubt that one of the arguments used against the Tudor versions of events is that of Richard`s stalwart character. I refer you to the 1984 TV Trial, where Jeremy Potter did just that. Kendall certainly used the argument in his R3 biography, as did Tey in her Daughter of Time. I`ve read the same in other articles, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment.
>
> I`ve never suggested at any time that Ricardians view Richard as "a paragon of virtue", or that they`re "blinkered fan-worshippers",
> indeed I applaud the R3 Society in trying to right a possible wrong. However I have noticed on this forum even as recently as yesterday that certain events relating to the Ricardian calender are celebrated or commemorated. Doesn`t bother me in the slightest. As an ex-RAF man I celebrate Battle of Britain day. Neither was I trying to besmirch Richard`s name or character. Enough people have done that already. Just trying to put things into perspective in my own mind and relative to the times in which he lived.
>
> Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
>
> Thanks for your info Annette. I`m slowly getting into the swing of things.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
> >
> > It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
> >
> > Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
> >
> > In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
> >
> > In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
> >
> > So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
> >
> > My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
> >
> > If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
> >
> > For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
> > Cheers, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Circumstances?
> >
> >
> >
> > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> >
> > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> >
> > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cheers,
Paul.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify - I didn't say that arguments about Richard's previous character were irrelevant - I asked who it was that said (quote) BECAUSE of his good character he COULDN'T have murdered. I'd need to know the page reference in Kendall before I'm convinced that is what he said. In fact, turning to his Appendix I about "Who murdered the 'Little Princes'?", I see the following on the second page: "It is very possible that King Richard is guilty of the crime." Josephine Tey wrote fiction, so that's a different kettle of fish.
>
> Jeremy Potter gave Richard a character reference at the beginning of his testimony at the request of the counsel for the defence (Mr Dillon: "I asked Mr Richards about his character up to the death of Edward IV. What ... how would you put it?"). Having spoken of his opinion of Richard's character ("the last man that anyone would have expected to have killed Edward IV's sons"), Potter didn't say that it was because of his good character that he couldn't have committed the crime. He moved on to speak of facts and actions: Richard performing acts of fealty to Edward V, the difficulties encountered because of the north-south divide and the opposition of the Woodvilles, the fact that young Warwick was a potential rival but was treated well, and the constitutional position that although Edward IV's boys posed some kind of a threat, nevertheless Richard had become king while they were still alive. It was his opinion that they were more of an embarrassment to Tudor and Buckingham. Next he suggested that Buckingham had the opportunity to murder the boys, but that other stories circulated about their being smuggled abroad. And he brought up the reconciliation with Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York. And much, much more. So Potter's arguments dealt primarily with matters of evidence and record, and his observations on Richard's character merely answered counsel's opening question.
>
> Richard's character is, as you subsequently say, just one of the many arguments people use to counteract Tudor mythology (which, by the way, found him guilty of a good deal more than just murdering Edward IV's sons!). But I would still dispute that many people say he couldn't have murdered because he had such a good character, which is the impression you said you'd got. That is something traditionalists accuse Ricardians of saying ("Richard was too honourable to have done such a thing", etc). And no, I never suggested that YOU were making such accusations! - The previous quote, and the one about the "quasi-religious cult", came directly from a recent book by historian David Hipshon.
>
> What I'm getting at is that most members of the Society that hosts this forum are interested in much more about Richard III, his life and his times, than whether he exhibited high moral principles or whether he was a cad and a bounder. As a matter of interest I challenge anyone accurately to make such presumptions about members of today's royal family like Prince Philip or Prince Charles, even though they are alive and we're awash with information about them. Even better would be the analogy with our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, who treated many people abominably and held some views that people today find reprehensible. Interesting, maybe, but insignificant compared to who he was, when he lived and what he did.
>
> Maybe if you get interested enough in Richard, you might feel it's worth joining the Society after all (you don't have to swear an oath to support him!). One thing you'll get for your membership is the ability to borrow stacks of books free of charge from the library by post, many of which are otherwise difficult to find. And VCRs and DVDs from the audio-visual library. So it'll certainly assist you in your researches.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Circumstances?
>
> That`s quite a comment to answer Annette.
>
> Firstly I`m not, nor ever have been, a member of the Richard III Society, nor have I any immediate plans of becoming one. I`m on the forum purely through interest in the subject matter and nothing else.
>
> Perhaps the word "attitude" wasn`t the right word to use, but there is no doubt that one of the arguments used against the Tudor versions of events is that of Richard`s stalwart character. I refer you to the 1984 TV Trial, where Jeremy Potter did just that. Kendall certainly used the argument in his R3 biography, as did Tey in her Daughter of Time. I`ve read the same in other articles, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment.
>
> I`ve never suggested at any time that Ricardians view Richard as "a paragon of virtue", or that they`re "blinkered fan-worshippers",
> indeed I applaud the R3 Society in trying to right a possible wrong. However I have noticed on this forum even as recently as yesterday that certain events relating to the Ricardian calender are celebrated or commemorated. Doesn`t bother me in the slightest. As an ex-RAF man I celebrate Battle of Britain day. Neither was I trying to besmirch Richard`s name or character. Enough people have done that already. Just trying to put things into perspective in my own mind and relative to the times in which he lived.
>
> Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
>
> Thanks for your info Annette. I`m slowly getting into the swing of things.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again, Paul. Going back to your posting of some days ago, I admit to being a little puzzled, myself, that you have discerned an attitude "that many have", which apparently seems to hold that because of Richard's previous good character he couldn't have murdered to fulfil an ambition. Since members of this forum reflect the entire gamut of views about Richard III, I doubt you would come across such a simplistic attitude here.
> >
> > It is, however, a recurrent theme of traditionalists that revisionists are "members of a quasi-religious cult that brooks no opposition", or that we view Richard as "a paragon of virtue" - which is shorthand for dismissing Ricardians as blinkered fan-worshippers. Since you have been reading around the subject, I'd really like to know where you came across the attitude you quote. It probably reveals much about the writer.
> >
> > Assuming that you're a member of the Richard III Society, you will be aware of its overarching view: "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society seeks to promote ... research ... and to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period and of the role ... of this monarch."
> >
> > In accordance with this stance, we are generally sceptics, not worshippers. Our standard of debate is fairly rigorous, we correct each other's mistakes freely, and are grateful to be corrected in the interests of getting at the truth. Most members, I feel, hold to the simple standpoint that says innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are looking to see the facts given a fair hearing, and we demand to examine the evidence before we are ready to believe something.
> >
> > In a criminal trial it is relevant to consider the accused's past character, but a hitherto spotless character doesn't constitute proof of anything, it is merely a portion of the big picture that is taken into consideration along with everything else. Anyway, Richard's character was certainly not spotless! Nor does a liar and a cheat necessarily make a bad ruler or, indeed, a murderer. The more one researches about the 15th century, the more one becomes immersed in the conventions of the age, and the less likely to assess it by today's very different standards.
> >
> > So, as anyone who's read my book will know, I'm not interested in drawing lofty conclusions - whether Richard was a "good" king, or a "good" character (or the opposite), I'll leave that to the historians and the novelists. More important are the specific policies and objectives (or ambitions) he was pursuing, so far as we know, and whether he was likely to achieve them by an action like a secret murder. A lot of claims of traditionalists fail this test because they are based on assumption, not evidence, and because they fly in the face of common sense, as several recent posts have pointed out.
> >
> > My personal interest is in evidence, not broad brush-strokes, and generally speaking you find evidence by poking around in corners and looking very carefully at nuances and interpretations of what little written material exists. For example, someone raised the question of exactly when Edward V and his brother disappeared from the Tower. This is actually not difficult to ascertain when you consult the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil, and when you calculate the time-frame of Buckingham's involvement in the 1483 rebellion (assuming that you accept the available material - but you've got to start somewhere, haven't you?).
> >
> > If you haven't read it already, the American attorney Bertram Fields's book "Royal Blood", mentioned by Joan, contains a good forensic examination of the evidence around the "mystery of the princes", and if that is what interests you, his book is a good place to start looking for more rational views than those you seem to have been reading. It's a little out of date now, and contains some errors, but at least it will serve to indicate that the arguments put forward by revisionists do not necessarily rest on emotional ideas of loyalty and chivalry.
> >
> > For the most up-to-date summary of the evidence of experts on the bones found in 1674 (and whether there was any velvet present) see chapter 10 of my book. At least, Geoff Wheeler says it's still the most up-to-date summary, and he should know because he reads everything! You'll also find details of the jaw disease mentioned by Joan, and how it would have affected the sufferer.
> > Cheers, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Circumstances?
> >
> >
> >
> > I`m a little puzzled by the attitude that many have, that because Richard had been solidly loyal to his brother Edward, a good and fair administrator, a good husband, murder being out of Richard`s character, and so on and so forth, he couldn`t have done just that to fulfil an ambition.
> >
> > With regard to the Princes I`m not saying he did, but he certainly had Hastings, and probably others, dispatched to their maker in a hurry (or was that purely Tudor propaganda), and being a brave and active soldier, killing, albeit on the battlefield, was not out of his nature. The Middle Ages was a violent time.
> >
> > History is full of stories where ambition, power, and greed, has turned, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and opportunity, a seemingly good man into a monster. Adolph Hitler is one example. Had he been acccepted as an artist when young then WWII may never have happened. Crippen was a mild man, but circumstances turned him into a murderer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 07:18:53
"pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than the
internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have laptop,
will travel"..."
As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading. The
American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of copyright
documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find links
to suggested course of study and recommended books.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than the
internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have laptop,
will travel"..."
As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading. The
American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of copyright
documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find links
to suggested course of study and recommended books.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 09:44:05
Thanks Joan. I`ve read a few articles from the R3 Soc site. I particularly enjoyed the article by Isolde Wigram. I do get a fair amount of waiting periods in my work, many times at odd hours, so I should be able to get some reading in. I realise that I`ve been sort of "shooting from the hip", but I hope it`s just put down as my way of...shall we say..."making an entrance". :-)
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
> posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than the
> internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
> hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have laptop,
> will travel"..."
>
> As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading. The
> American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of copyright
> documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find links
> to suggested course of study and recommended books.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
>
>
>
>
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
> posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than the
> internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
> hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have laptop,
> will travel"..."
>
> As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading. The
> American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of copyright
> documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find links
> to suggested course of study and recommended books.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 17:32:16
Sadly, Royal Blood by Bertram Fields is not available electronically,
but at a little over 300 pages in length, it would not be so burdensome
to carry around. You might want to see if you can obtain a copy, either
from a library or bookstore. As Annette mentioned, this book is good for
an objective analysis of the evidence or lack of regarding the mystery
of the princes.
You might also enjoy reading my blog article
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
comments. I think this area needs much further research.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
--- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joan. I`ve read a few articles from the R3 Soc site. I
particularly enjoyed the article by Isolde Wigram. I do get a fair
amount of waiting periods in my work, many times at odd hours, so I
should be able to get some reading in. I realise that I`ve been sort of
"shooting from the hip", but I hope it`s just put down as my way
of...shall we say..."making an entrance". :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
> > posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than
the
> > internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
> > hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have
laptop,
> > will travel"..."
> >
> > As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading.
The
> > American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of
copyright
> > documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
> > <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find
links
> > to suggested course of study and recommended books.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
but at a little over 300 pages in length, it would not be so burdensome
to carry around. You might want to see if you can obtain a copy, either
from a library or bookstore. As Annette mentioned, this book is good for
an objective analysis of the evidence or lack of regarding the mystery
of the princes.
You might also enjoy reading my blog article
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
comments. I think this area needs much further research.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
--- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joan. I`ve read a few articles from the R3 Soc site. I
particularly enjoyed the article by Isolde Wigram. I do get a fair
amount of waiting periods in my work, many times at odd hours, so I
should be able to get some reading in. I realise that I`ve been sort of
"shooting from the hip", but I hope it`s just put down as my way
of...shall we say..."making an entrance". :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
> > posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than
the
> > internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
> > hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have
laptop,
> > will travel"..."
> >
> > As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading.
The
> > American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of
copyright
> > documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
> > <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find
links
> > to suggested course of study and recommended books.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 18:07:14
I heartily concur in this.a 'must' read I think...
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Joan
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
Sadly, Royal Blood by Bertram Fields is not available electronically,
but at a little over 300 pages in length, it would not be so burdensome
to carry around. You might want to see if you can obtain a copy, either
from a library or bookstore. As Annette mentioned, this book is good for
an objective analysis of the evidence or lack of regarding the mystery
of the princes.
You might also enjoy reading my blog article
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-have.ht
ml>
e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
comments. I think this area needs much further research.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joan. I`ve read a few articles from the R3 Soc site. I
particularly enjoyed the article by Isolde Wigram. I do get a fair
amount of waiting periods in my work, many times at odd hours, so I
should be able to get some reading in. I realise that I`ve been sort of
"shooting from the hip", but I hope it`s just put down as my way
of...shall we say..."making an entrance". :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
> > posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than
the
> > internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
> > hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have
laptop,
> > will travel"..."
> >
> > As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading.
The
> > American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of
copyright
> > documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
> > <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find
links
> > to suggested course of study and recommended books.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Joan
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
Sadly, Royal Blood by Bertram Fields is not available electronically,
but at a little over 300 pages in length, it would not be so burdensome
to carry around. You might want to see if you can obtain a copy, either
from a library or bookstore. As Annette mentioned, this book is good for
an objective analysis of the evidence or lack of regarding the mystery
of the princes.
You might also enjoy reading my blog article
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-have.ht
ml>
e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
comments. I think this area needs much further research.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joan. I`ve read a few articles from the R3 Soc site. I
particularly enjoyed the article by Isolde Wigram. I do get a fair
amount of waiting periods in my work, many times at odd hours, so I
should be able to get some reading in. I realise that I`ve been sort of
"shooting from the hip", but I hope it`s just put down as my way
of...shall we say..."making an entrance". :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote: "... As I said in one of my first
> > posts. I don`t have the means of research at the moment other than
the
> > internet. I`m working away from home, with no permanent address,
> > hopefully only for a short while. For me it`s a matter of "Have
laptop,
> > will travel"..."
> >
> > As it happens, you're in luck if you want to do some online reading.
The
> > American Branch website has quite a few full texts of out of
copyright
> > documents, such as "The Croyland Chronicles" here
> > <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> where you can also find
links
> > to suggested course of study and recommended books.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 19:45:18
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
> comments. I think this area needs much further research.
Regarding the bones, Annette Carson has a very good discussion of them and the place they were found in her Richard III, the Maligned King.
Considering the depth and location at which they were found, I think they represent a pre-Roman wall sacrifice. The site of the White Tower is a strategic one which has been occupied by a fortress since time immemorial, each one built atop the previous one. The Roman fortress Londinium had a massive exterior wall that exactly aligns with the southeast corner of the White Tower. That corner is a vulnerable spot, nearest to the Thames. I can see a need for sacrifices there to give it supernatural protection.
The Romans had a horror of such human sacrifices. If they turned one up in excavating for the foundations their own, stronger, fortifications it is not unreasonable to think that they would have put them right back, respectfully, and workers 500 years later, preparing the massive splayed foundations of the White Tower for William I, could have done the same thing. What else, after all,to do with the bones? They would have been obviously pagan just judging from the depth at which they were found, so it would not be seemly to remove them to either a Roman or, later, a Christian cemetary. Perhaps at some point they were wrapped in cloth and/or placed in a wooden box, then reinterred.
I think it adds to my theory that one of the skeletons has a diseased jaw. A person with such an advanced state of illness would not live long, so the sacrifice of that person would not have been a potential loss to the community of a productive adult.
Katy
>
> e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
> comments. I think this area needs much further research.
Regarding the bones, Annette Carson has a very good discussion of them and the place they were found in her Richard III, the Maligned King.
Considering the depth and location at which they were found, I think they represent a pre-Roman wall sacrifice. The site of the White Tower is a strategic one which has been occupied by a fortress since time immemorial, each one built atop the previous one. The Roman fortress Londinium had a massive exterior wall that exactly aligns with the southeast corner of the White Tower. That corner is a vulnerable spot, nearest to the Thames. I can see a need for sacrifices there to give it supernatural protection.
The Romans had a horror of such human sacrifices. If they turned one up in excavating for the foundations their own, stronger, fortifications it is not unreasonable to think that they would have put them right back, respectfully, and workers 500 years later, preparing the massive splayed foundations of the White Tower for William I, could have done the same thing. What else, after all,to do with the bones? They would have been obviously pagan just judging from the depth at which they were found, so it would not be seemly to remove them to either a Roman or, later, a Christian cemetary. Perhaps at some point they were wrapped in cloth and/or placed in a wooden box, then reinterred.
I think it adds to my theory that one of the skeletons has a diseased jaw. A person with such an advanced state of illness would not live long, so the sacrifice of that person would not have been a potential loss to the community of a productive adult.
Katy
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 21:49:50
Wasn`t it suggested that there was some kind of similar teeth deformity with both the Princes and Anne Mowbray? I seem to recall reading or hearing something about some such, although just where I can`t remember. But if so would such a deformity lead to jaw disease?
Paul.
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
>
> > e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
> > comments. I think this area needs much further research.
>
>
>
> Regarding the bones, Annette Carson has a very good discussion of them and the place they were found in her Richard III, the Maligned King.
>
> Considering the depth and location at which they were found, I think they represent a pre-Roman wall sacrifice. The site of the White Tower is a strategic one which has been occupied by a fortress since time immemorial, each one built atop the previous one. The Roman fortress Londinium had a massive exterior wall that exactly aligns with the southeast corner of the White Tower. That corner is a vulnerable spot, nearest to the Thames. I can see a need for sacrifices there to give it supernatural protection.
>
> The Romans had a horror of such human sacrifices. If they turned one up in excavating for the foundations their own, stronger, fortifications it is not unreasonable to think that they would have put them right back, respectfully, and workers 500 years later, preparing the massive splayed foundations of the White Tower for William I, could have done the same thing. What else, after all,to do with the bones? They would have been obviously pagan just judging from the depth at which they were found, so it would not be seemly to remove them to either a Roman or, later, a Christian cemetary. Perhaps at some point they were wrapped in cloth and/or placed in a wooden box, then reinterred.
>
> I think it adds to my theory that one of the skeletons has a diseased jaw. A person with such an advanced state of illness would not live long, so the sacrifice of that person would not have been a potential loss to the community of a productive adult.
>
> Katy
>
Paul.
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
>
> > e.html> about the myth that Edward V had jaw disease, including the
> > comments. I think this area needs much further research.
>
>
>
> Regarding the bones, Annette Carson has a very good discussion of them and the place they were found in her Richard III, the Maligned King.
>
> Considering the depth and location at which they were found, I think they represent a pre-Roman wall sacrifice. The site of the White Tower is a strategic one which has been occupied by a fortress since time immemorial, each one built atop the previous one. The Roman fortress Londinium had a massive exterior wall that exactly aligns with the southeast corner of the White Tower. That corner is a vulnerable spot, nearest to the Thames. I can see a need for sacrifices there to give it supernatural protection.
>
> The Romans had a horror of such human sacrifices. If they turned one up in excavating for the foundations their own, stronger, fortifications it is not unreasonable to think that they would have put them right back, respectfully, and workers 500 years later, preparing the massive splayed foundations of the White Tower for William I, could have done the same thing. What else, after all,to do with the bones? They would have been obviously pagan just judging from the depth at which they were found, so it would not be seemly to remove them to either a Roman or, later, a Christian cemetary. Perhaps at some point they were wrapped in cloth and/or placed in a wooden box, then reinterred.
>
> I think it adds to my theory that one of the skeletons has a diseased jaw. A person with such an advanced state of illness would not live long, so the sacrifice of that person would not have been a potential loss to the community of a productive adult.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-24 23:03:48
"pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote: "Wasn`t it suggested that there was
some kind of similar teeth deformity with both the Princes and Anne
Mowbray? I seem to recall reading or hearing something about some such,
although just where I can`t remember. But if so would such a deformity
lead to jaw disease?"
In examining Anne Mobray's skeleton, it was found that she had never
developed a molar (IIRC), which is a congenital defect. However, it is
not related to the jaw deformation of the Tower jaw bone.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
some kind of similar teeth deformity with both the Princes and Anne
Mowbray? I seem to recall reading or hearing something about some such,
although just where I can`t remember. But if so would such a deformity
lead to jaw disease?"
In examining Anne Mobray's skeleton, it was found that she had never
developed a molar (IIRC), which is a congenital defect. However, it is
not related to the jaw deformation of the Tower jaw bone.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-25 09:17:51
Hi Joan - The congenitally missing teeth in Anne Mowbray's remains were identified by the dental expert Martin Rushton as her upper and lower permanent second molars on the left side. Congenital absence of these is a rarity.
As you rightly say, there is no suggestion that congenitally missing teeth (hypodontia) had any connection with the jaw disease exhibited by the older skull in the urn. Rushton suggested the disease was osteitis, and others have suggested it was osteomyelitis (the latter could develop as a consequence of the former, and could result in an early death given the lack of treatment available). Essentially it's a jawbone infection from rotten teeth.
The significance of the hypodontia is that Tanner and Wright, in their enthusiasm to try to see a family relationship between the skulls in the urn, suggested that evidence of this was shown by both skulls having congenitally missing teeth. They did not have Anne Mowbray's skull available for comparison.
However, the missing teeth in the older skull in the urn, identified by Professor Wright as the upper second premolars and lower third molars or wisdom teeth, are described by Rushton as 'a more common deficiency' (everyone knows that missing wisdom teeth are scarcely unusual at all). Hammond and White in their examination of the evidence pointed out that absence of the particular teeth noticed in this skull is so common that they are normally ruled out in modern studies of hypodontia.
Turning to the younger skull, their one presumed case of hypodontia in this skull was unproven, and was in any case a category of tooth most often congenitally missing. Their other suggested missing tooth was a milk tooth probably knocked out at an early age. Altogether not very convincing.
A further blow to Tanner and Wright's theories is that although hypodontia is usually an hereditary trait, it has been shown that females are twice as likely to have congenitally missing teeth - and are even more likely than boys to have congenitally absent wisdom teeth.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
"pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote: "Wasn`t it suggested that there was
some kind of similar teeth deformity with both the Princes and Anne
Mowbray? I seem to recall reading or hearing something about some such,
although just where I can`t remember. But if so would such a deformity
lead to jaw disease?"
In examining Anne Mobray's skeleton, it was found that she had never
developed a molar (IIRC), which is a congenital defect. However, it is
not related to the jaw deformation of the Tower jaw bone.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
As you rightly say, there is no suggestion that congenitally missing teeth (hypodontia) had any connection with the jaw disease exhibited by the older skull in the urn. Rushton suggested the disease was osteitis, and others have suggested it was osteomyelitis (the latter could develop as a consequence of the former, and could result in an early death given the lack of treatment available). Essentially it's a jawbone infection from rotten teeth.
The significance of the hypodontia is that Tanner and Wright, in their enthusiasm to try to see a family relationship between the skulls in the urn, suggested that evidence of this was shown by both skulls having congenitally missing teeth. They did not have Anne Mowbray's skull available for comparison.
However, the missing teeth in the older skull in the urn, identified by Professor Wright as the upper second premolars and lower third molars or wisdom teeth, are described by Rushton as 'a more common deficiency' (everyone knows that missing wisdom teeth are scarcely unusual at all). Hammond and White in their examination of the evidence pointed out that absence of the particular teeth noticed in this skull is so common that they are normally ruled out in modern studies of hypodontia.
Turning to the younger skull, their one presumed case of hypodontia in this skull was unproven, and was in any case a category of tooth most often congenitally missing. Their other suggested missing tooth was a milk tooth probably knocked out at an early age. Altogether not very convincing.
A further blow to Tanner and Wright's theories is that although hypodontia is usually an hereditary trait, it has been shown that females are twice as likely to have congenitally missing teeth - and are even more likely than boys to have congenitally absent wisdom teeth.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
"pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote: "Wasn`t it suggested that there was
some kind of similar teeth deformity with both the Princes and Anne
Mowbray? I seem to recall reading or hearing something about some such,
although just where I can`t remember. But if so would such a deformity
lead to jaw disease?"
In examining Anne Mobray's skeleton, it was found that she had never
developed a molar (IIRC), which is a congenital defect. However, it is
not related to the jaw deformation of the Tower jaw bone.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-27 02:38:31
Paul wrote:
>
> Understood Stephen, but that wasn`t really the point I was trying to make in my comments.
>
> One of the many reasons and arguments that Ricardians (or pro-Richard arguers) have put forward to debunk the Tudor myths is that Richard was loyal, upright, brave, and had all the noble attributes that a king should have, and so to arrange murder of children would be against his character and nature. I`m trying to explore the possibilty, given the times and situations, that perhaps this wasn`t necessarily so.
>
> Paul.
Carol responds:
I'm one of those people who believes that Richard, the loyal brother of Edward IV, was unlikely to have murdered his brother's sons. For one thing, it wasn't in his interest to do so. He was, in his own words, looking for the "love" of his subjects. Having his nephews (who were no threat to his succession since he was already king) murdered would hardly have accomplished that objective. And if he felt the need to remove them from the tower to prevent having them use as figureheads in rebellions, killing them was unnecessary. He could have sent them to live at Gipping (sp?) with Sir James Tyrell or in Burgundy with his sister, Margaret (who certainly would not have sheltered Richard's supporters after his death if she thought that he had killed their nephews).
Richard never killed a woman or a priest (unlike the Tudors), so he seems unlikely to kill a child, especially little Richard, whom he knew. He certainly didn't kill his other young nephew, the Earl of Warwick, whose claim was technically superior to his own (or would have been if the attainder were reversed). His legislation is enlightened for the time and shows a concern for the common people. The one taste of his personality that we get is the letter about Mistress Shore, hardly the work of an ambitious tyrant.
Aside from the hasty execution of Hastings (who may well have been involved in a plot to murder Richard, Buckingham, and "all the old blood royal of this royaume," to misquote rather badly from memory) there is no evidence that Richard, always known for his justice and fairness, changed character in any way after his brother's death. As Annette has said, it's clear that he intended to serve as Protector until circumstances (the revelation of Edward V[s illegitimacy) made that course of action next to impossible.
Sorry that I don't have time to quote accurately or cite sources.
Carol, who recommends Annette's new book if you haven't yet read it
>
> Understood Stephen, but that wasn`t really the point I was trying to make in my comments.
>
> One of the many reasons and arguments that Ricardians (or pro-Richard arguers) have put forward to debunk the Tudor myths is that Richard was loyal, upright, brave, and had all the noble attributes that a king should have, and so to arrange murder of children would be against his character and nature. I`m trying to explore the possibilty, given the times and situations, that perhaps this wasn`t necessarily so.
>
> Paul.
Carol responds:
I'm one of those people who believes that Richard, the loyal brother of Edward IV, was unlikely to have murdered his brother's sons. For one thing, it wasn't in his interest to do so. He was, in his own words, looking for the "love" of his subjects. Having his nephews (who were no threat to his succession since he was already king) murdered would hardly have accomplished that objective. And if he felt the need to remove them from the tower to prevent having them use as figureheads in rebellions, killing them was unnecessary. He could have sent them to live at Gipping (sp?) with Sir James Tyrell or in Burgundy with his sister, Margaret (who certainly would not have sheltered Richard's supporters after his death if she thought that he had killed their nephews).
Richard never killed a woman or a priest (unlike the Tudors), so he seems unlikely to kill a child, especially little Richard, whom he knew. He certainly didn't kill his other young nephew, the Earl of Warwick, whose claim was technically superior to his own (or would have been if the attainder were reversed). His legislation is enlightened for the time and shows a concern for the common people. The one taste of his personality that we get is the letter about Mistress Shore, hardly the work of an ambitious tyrant.
Aside from the hasty execution of Hastings (who may well have been involved in a plot to murder Richard, Buckingham, and "all the old blood royal of this royaume," to misquote rather badly from memory) there is no evidence that Richard, always known for his justice and fairness, changed character in any way after his brother's death. As Annette has said, it's clear that he intended to serve as Protector until circumstances (the revelation of Edward V[s illegitimacy) made that course of action next to impossible.
Sorry that I don't have time to quote accurately or cite sources.
Carol, who recommends Annette's new book if you haven't yet read it
Re: Circumstances?
2010-08-27 15:06:11
Quite right, Carol. The chapel is on the Gipping valley just near Haughley and Wetherden.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
Paul wrote:
>
> Understood Stephen, but that wasn`t really the point I was trying to make in my comments.
>
> One of the many reasons and arguments that Ricardians (or pro-Richard arguers) have put forward to debunk the Tudor myths is that Richard was loyal, upright, brave, and had all the noble attributes that a king should have, and so to arrange murder of children would be against his character and nature. I`m trying to explore the possibilty, given the times and situations, that perhaps this wasn`t necessarily so.
>
> Paul.
Carol responds:
I'm one of those people who believes that Richard, the loyal brother of Edward IV, was unlikely to have murdered his brother's sons. For one thing, it wasn't in his interest to do so. He was, in his own words, looking for the "love" of his subjects. Having his nephews (who were no threat to his succession since he was already king) murdered would hardly have accomplished that objective. And if he felt the need to remove them from the tower to prevent having them use as figureheads in rebellions, killing them was unnecessary. He could have sent them to live at Gipping (sp?) with Sir James Tyrell or in Burgundy with his sister, Margaret (who certainly would not have sheltered Richard's supporters after his death if she thought that he had killed their nephews).
Richard never killed a woman or a priest (unlike the Tudors), so he seems unlikely to kill a child, especially little Richard, whom he knew. He certainly didn't kill his other young nephew, the Earl of Warwick, whose claim was technically superior to his own (or would have been if the attainder were reversed). His legislation is enlightened for the time and shows a concern for the common people. The one taste of his personality that we get is the letter about Mistress Shore, hardly the work of an ambitious tyrant.
Aside from the hasty execution of Hastings (who may well have been involved in a plot to murder Richard, Buckingham, and "all the old blood royal of this royaume," to misquote rather badly from memory) there is no evidence that Richard, always known for his justice and fairness, changed character in any way after his brother's death. As Annette has said, it's clear that he intended to serve as Protector until circumstances (the revelation of Edward V[s illegitimacy) made that course of action next to impossible.
Sorry that I don't have time to quote accurately or cite sources.
Carol, who recommends Annette's new book if you haven't yet read it
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Circumstances?
Paul wrote:
>
> Understood Stephen, but that wasn`t really the point I was trying to make in my comments.
>
> One of the many reasons and arguments that Ricardians (or pro-Richard arguers) have put forward to debunk the Tudor myths is that Richard was loyal, upright, brave, and had all the noble attributes that a king should have, and so to arrange murder of children would be against his character and nature. I`m trying to explore the possibilty, given the times and situations, that perhaps this wasn`t necessarily so.
>
> Paul.
Carol responds:
I'm one of those people who believes that Richard, the loyal brother of Edward IV, was unlikely to have murdered his brother's sons. For one thing, it wasn't in his interest to do so. He was, in his own words, looking for the "love" of his subjects. Having his nephews (who were no threat to his succession since he was already king) murdered would hardly have accomplished that objective. And if he felt the need to remove them from the tower to prevent having them use as figureheads in rebellions, killing them was unnecessary. He could have sent them to live at Gipping (sp?) with Sir James Tyrell or in Burgundy with his sister, Margaret (who certainly would not have sheltered Richard's supporters after his death if she thought that he had killed their nephews).
Richard never killed a woman or a priest (unlike the Tudors), so he seems unlikely to kill a child, especially little Richard, whom he knew. He certainly didn't kill his other young nephew, the Earl of Warwick, whose claim was technically superior to his own (or would have been if the attainder were reversed). His legislation is enlightened for the time and shows a concern for the common people. The one taste of his personality that we get is the letter about Mistress Shore, hardly the work of an ambitious tyrant.
Aside from the hasty execution of Hastings (who may well have been involved in a plot to murder Richard, Buckingham, and "all the old blood royal of this royaume," to misquote rather badly from memory) there is no evidence that Richard, always known for his justice and fairness, changed character in any way after his brother's death. As Annette has said, it's clear that he intended to serve as Protector until circumstances (the revelation of Edward V[s illegitimacy) made that course of action next to impossible.
Sorry that I don't have time to quote accurately or cite sources.
Carol, who recommends Annette's new book if you haven't yet read it
Re: Circumstances?
2010-09-03 17:12:24
Paul "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
Carol responds:
When you read Vergil, you might bear in mind that he was writing not only under but *for* Henry VII. He's quite reliable, apparently, on matters of Tudor's actions and whereabouts before the Battle of Bosworth Field, but he had no eyewitnesses to speak for what Richard was doing, saying, or thinking at any point (most relevantly, from Edward IV's death to Richard's). He does seem to have attempted to get the facts right, but the problem is that he received information from only one side--and, of course, it was not in Henry Tudor's interest to be fair to the man he supplanted. Moreover, Vergil complained about the scarcity of sources for the period. He's been accused of destroying documents himself, but it seems more likely, as Annette notes in her book, that someone else destroyed the documents or simply prevented Vergil from having access to them.
At any rate, Vergil was not in England during the events in question and is by no means "the horse's mouth."
Carol, noting that Vergil is provably wrong on some points, such as Edward IV's age at death
<snip>
>
> Haven`t read Vergil yet, but I have cut and pasted relevant parts of Crowland, and have already worked out a rough timeline of events, but I can`t do everything at once. Anyone who says he doesn`t make mistakes is a liar, and I expect to make many mistakes along the way. The trick is to learn by mistakes, and of course to learn by posing questions. So far it seems I`ve done both. C`est la vie:-)
Carol responds:
When you read Vergil, you might bear in mind that he was writing not only under but *for* Henry VII. He's quite reliable, apparently, on matters of Tudor's actions and whereabouts before the Battle of Bosworth Field, but he had no eyewitnesses to speak for what Richard was doing, saying, or thinking at any point (most relevantly, from Edward IV's death to Richard's). He does seem to have attempted to get the facts right, but the problem is that he received information from only one side--and, of course, it was not in Henry Tudor's interest to be fair to the man he supplanted. Moreover, Vergil complained about the scarcity of sources for the period. He's been accused of destroying documents himself, but it seems more likely, as Annette notes in her book, that someone else destroyed the documents or simply prevented Vergil from having access to them.
At any rate, Vergil was not in England during the events in question and is by no means "the horse's mouth."
Carol, noting that Vergil is provably wrong on some points, such as Edward IV's age at death
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.