The mystery of Edward V.

`After Richard III's accession, the princes were gradually seen less and less within the Tower, and by the end of the summer of 1483 they had disappeared from public view altogether. Their fate remains unknown, but it is generally believed that they were killed. The three principal suspects are King Richard; his one-time ally Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; and Henry Tudor, who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field and took the throne as Henry VII. Bones were discovered in 1674 by workmen demolishing a stairway in the Tower, and these were subsequently placed in Westminster Abbey, in an urn bearing the names of Edward and Richard. However it has never been proven that the bones belonged to the princes, so there remains a possibility that Edward survived the Tower.'

And so the mystery remains.

Three points:

1.Would Richard III have been wise to leave the princes alive after the massive rebellion against him and for them shortly after his accession?

2.The 1674 bones were the right ages for the princes, dental similarities suggested family relationship, velvet found around an arm suggested important people and who else could they be? So, the ages of the bones correspond with Richard III's reign, but that doesn't let the wily Buckingham off the hook.

3. Someone suggested that voles got to the princes or plague; who knows?

This is the question, isn't it? What happened to the princes. After
doing research for my book, This Time, I came to the conclusion that the
princes probably survived Richard and so that's what I went with. For
one, despite the rumors and Tudor propaganda, there is no extant
contemporary documentation saying that anything happened to them. Henry
VII never declared the princes dead, and I believe, based on how he
handled the man he called Perkin Warbeck, he thought that Perkin could
have been Richard of York. For another, I don't think the tower bones
are those of the princes. To see why, suggest reading Royal Blood by
Bertram Fields and Richard III: The Maligned King by Annette Carson. In
Royal Blood, Fields points out that the chain of custody for the bones
when they were "found" and then dumped on a trash heap in 1674 during
the tower renovation was seriously broken and that other debis,
including animal bones, were mixed in with the bones that were declared
to be those of the princes. IMO, both are excellent books and worth
reading from cover to cover. Also see my blog article: Did Edward V have
a diseased jaw?
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
e.html>

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , "vermeertwo"
<hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> `After Richard III's accession, the princes were gradually seen less
and less within the Tower, and by the end of the summer of 1483 they had
disappeared from public view altogether. Their fate remains unknown, but
it is generally believed that they were killed. The three principal
suspects are King Richard; his one-time ally Henry Stafford, Duke of
Buckingham; and Henry Tudor, who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field and
took the throne as Henry VII. Bones were discovered in 1674 by workmen
demolishing a stairway in the Tower, and these were subsequently placed
in Westminster Abbey, in an urn bearing the names of Edward and Richard.
However it has never been proven that the bones belonged to the princes,
so there remains a possibility that Edward survived the Tower.'
>
> And so the mystery remains.
>
> Three points:
>
> 1.Would Richard III have been wise to leave the princes alive after
the massive rebellion against him and for them shortly after his
accession?
>
> 2.The 1674 bones were the right ages for the princes, dental
similarities suggested family relationship, velvet found around an arm
suggested important people and who else could they be? So, the ages of
the bones correspond with Richard III's reign, but that doesn't let the
wily Buckingham off the hook.
>
> 3. Someone suggested that voles got to the princes or plague; who
knows?
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> And so the mystery remains.
>
> Three points:
>
> 1.Would Richard III have been wise to leave the princes alive after the massive rebellion against him and for them shortly after his accession?
>
> 2.The 1674 bones were the right ages for the princes, dental similarities suggested family relationship, velvet found around an arm suggested important people and who else could they be? So, the ages of the bones correspond with Richard III's reign, but that doesn't let the wily Buckingham off the hook.
>
> 3. Someone suggested that voles got to the princes or plague; who knows?
>

These questions have fascinated people for over 500 years, and continue to do so. Just about everything that "everyone knows" about these matters, such as that the "princes were murdered on R III's orders, that the bones in the urn are their remains, that the bones are anything like those of two boys the right age from the right era, is inaccurate or debatable.

The more you delve into the subject, the more complicated it becomes and the more interesting the research. If you want a slice of history that will occupy you for a decade or two, this is the one.

Katy

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Date: Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:56 am
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:

>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo"
> <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >
> > And so the mystery remains.
> >
> > Three points:
> >
> > 1.Would Richard III have been wise to leave the princes alive
> after the massive rebellion against him and for them shortly
> after his accession?
> >
> > 2.The 1674 bones were the right ages for the princes, dental
> similarities suggested family relationship, velvet found around
> an arm suggested important people and who else could they
> be?   So, the ages of the bones correspond with
> Richard III's reign, but that doesn't let the wily Buckingham
> off the hook.
> >
> > 3. Someone suggested that voles got to the princes or plague;
> who knows?
> >
>
I hope that when the present Prince of Wales becomes King, someone will approach him and ask that the bones in the urn be released for study with more modern techniques. Even if it doesn't totally solve the mystery of what happened to the princes, it may resolve some of the questions about who the bones belong to. Charles is deeply interested in matters both scientific and historical, so I think there is a good chance he would agree if he were asked.

"vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> 1.Would Richard III have been wise to leave the princes alive after the massive rebellion against him and for them shortly after his accession?

Carol responds:
If by "massive rebellion" you mean Buckingham's Rebellion (so-called), Richard put it down easily. As for keeping them alive, it was in Henry Tudor's interest for them to be dead or believed to be dead but not in Richard's because they were his nephews and children. (His stated goal was to be loved, and killing them would hardly achieve that goal.) Henry IV displayed the body of Richard II. Edward IV displayed the body of Henry VI. Richard made no announcements and displayed no bodies. Yes, they disappeared, but he could have removed them from the Tower without killing them. (The most likely place to send them was to his sister in Burgundy. She was their aunt, after all.)
>
> 2.The 1674 bones were the right ages for the princes, dental similarities suggested family relationship, velvet found around an arm suggested important people and who else could they be? So, the ages of the bones correspond with Richard III's reign, but that doesn't let the wily Buckingham off the hook.

Carol:
The people who examined the bones did not have access to modern methods and assumed the truth of the highly unlikely More account. Moreover, they failed to consider such matters as the great variation in the sizes of children of any given age. The bones could as easily have been those of Roman girls given their location as of the "princes."

Carol, who has to rush because it's Thanksgiving here in the U.W.

> Carol hastily typed:

>
> Carol, who has to rush because it's Thanksgiving here in the U.W.

Carol again:

Ergh. Make that the U.S.

C.

"justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote: "...The most likely place to
send them was to his sister in Burgundy. She was their aunt, after
all...." I'll disagree here in that because it seemed to be the most
likely place, that Richard would have reckoned his enemies would think
that too. I think he separated them and had Brampton take Richard of
York to his household in Portugal and had Edward V be taken into
Tyrell's care.

As for the bones, I think "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields and "Richard
III: The Maligned King" by Annette Carson credibly dispute that the
bones are those of the princes. See also my blog discussion and comments
(some from Annette Carson) on Edward V's supposed diseased jaw
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
e.html> .

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so obvious. And
John Morton was also snooping around there.

Cheers, Dorothea





________________________________
From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, 26 November, 2010 6:22:58 AM
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.


"justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote: "...The most likely place to
send them was to his sister in Burgundy. She was their aunt, after
all...." I'll disagree here in that because it seemed to be the most
likely place, that Richard would have reckoned his enemies would think
that too. I think he separated them and had Brampton take Richard of
York to his household in Portugal and had Edward V be taken into
Tyrell's care.

As for the bones, I think "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields and "Richard
III: The Maligned King" by Annette Carson credibly dispute that the
bones are those of the princes. See also my blog discussion and comments
(some from Annette Carson) on Edward V's supposed diseased jaw
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
e.html> .

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

What I can`t figure out is that if the Princes were taken
somewhere to safety by whomever, how was their presence
in that somewhere kept secret at the time, and indeed right
up to the present day? Were they kept in a dungeon(s) never
to be let out? Secrecy isn`t an easy state to maintain. And
at the time of the boys` disappearance, both England and
Europe must have been a hotbed of tittle-tattle and full of information seekers who had money to pay for that info.
Someone invariably blabs, even in the most loyal places,
and by the most loyal people.

Paul Neville.


--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so obvious. And
> John Morton was also snooping around there.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, 26 November, 2010 6:22:58 AM
> Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
>
>
> "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote: "...The most likely place to
> send them was to his sister in Burgundy. She was their aunt, after
> all...." I'll disagree here in that because it seemed to be the most
> likely place, that Richard would have reckoned his enemies would think
> that too. I think he separated them and had Brampton take Richard of
> York to his household in Portugal and had Edward V be taken into
> Tyrell's care.
>
> As for the bones, I think "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields and "Richard
> III: The Maligned King" by Annette Carson credibly dispute that the
> bones are those of the princes. See also my blog discussion and comments
> (some from Annette Carson) on Edward V's supposed diseased jaw
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
> e.html> .
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 25 Nov 2010, at 23:17, pneville49 wrote:

> Someone invariably blabs, even in the most loyal places,
> and by the most loyal people.

Same applies to murder, doesn't it, especially that of important people.
Paul

It's nice to think that the stench of crime always rises to the surface, but does it?

I checked the crime statistics for the UK for one year and of all crimes, only 27% were solved!

Edward V and York vanished. Is there any real evidence beyond that?


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Nov 2010, at 23:17, pneville49 wrote:
>
> > Someone invariably blabs, even in the most loyal places,
> > and by the most loyal people.
>
> Same applies to murder, doesn't it, especially that of important people.
> Paul
>

Dorothea Preis wrote:
>
> I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so obvious. And John Morton was also snooping around there.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea

Carol responds:

And yet it seems clear that Margaret of York, dowager duchess of Burgundy, knew where the boys were given the secret massages passing between her and Richard at the time. (I do think, by the way, that both Sir James Tyrell and Edward Brampton, neither of them present at Bosworth, were in some way involved with hiding the former princes (who were also no longer king and duke).

Also, I'm not entirely sure that Burgundy was "obvious" given that anyone who cared about the whereabouts of the boys seems to have believed the rumor that they were dead, which Richard (if he knew about it) was careful not to contradict. (Who will go looking for boys believed to be dead?)

Carol, who thinks that Margaret's relationship to her brother Richard deserves further investigation

Burgundy was also a very large territory, very spread out, so it would have been difficult to search.

--- On Fri, 26/11/10, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Date: Friday, 26 November, 2010, 17:43


 



Dorothea Preis wrote:
>
> I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so obvious. And John Morton was also snooping around there.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea

Carol responds:

And yet it seems clear that Margaret of York, dowager duchess of Burgundy, knew where the boys were given the secret massages passing between her and Richard at the time. (I do think, by the way, that both Sir James Tyrell and Edward Brampton, neither of them present at Bosworth, were in some way involved with hiding the former princes (who were also no longer king and duke).

Also, I'm not entirely sure that Burgundy was "obvious" given that anyone who cared about the whereabouts of the boys seems to have believed the rumor that they were dead, which Richard (if he knew about it) was careful not to contradict. (Who will go looking for boys believed to be dead?)

Carol, who thinks that Margaret's relationship to her brother Richard deserves further investigation

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Carol, who thinks that Margaret's relationship to her brother Richard deserves further investigation
>


I'd like to see that done, too. Some very interesting things might turn up.

Katy

I also believe that Margaret knew what was going on, and would have made sure
that any bishops of Ely hanging about would not hear of it. I also think that
Morton knew the boys had got away and would have liked to find out.


Dorothea, who also thinks that Margaret's relationship to her brother Richard
deserves further investigation





________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 4:43:42 AM
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.


Dorothea Preis wrote:
>
> I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so obvious.
>And John Morton was also snooping around there.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea

Carol responds:

And yet it seems clear that Margaret of York, dowager duchess of Burgundy, knew
where the boys were given the secret massages passing between her and Richard at
the time. (I do think, by the way, that both Sir James Tyrell and Edward
Brampton, neither of them present at Bosworth, were in some way involved with
hiding the former princes (who were also no longer king and duke).

Also, I'm not entirely sure that Burgundy was "obvious" given that anyone who
cared about the whereabouts of the boys seems to have believed the rumor that
they were dead, which Richard (if he knew about it) was careful not to
contradict. (Who will go looking for boys believed to be dead?)

Carol, who thinks that Margaret's relationship to her brother Richard deserves
further investigation

At 04:48 PM 11/25/2010, Dorothea Preis wrote:
>I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so
>obvious. And
>John Morton was also snooping around there.


What about Ireland? We know Ireland was staunchly Yorkist from the
time when the boys' grandfather led there, and Ireland was viewed as
almost a no-man's-land by most English. It seems to me those facts
make it an excellent place to hide the boys, where it was highly
unlikely anyone would search for them. Being older, Margaret might
even have remembered being there and known who to contact for help.


Regards,
Rogue

It was certainly the gathering place for the Yorkist pretenders.

On 26/11/2010 7:17 PM, Rogue wrote:
>
> At 04:48 PM 11/25/2010, Dorothea Preis wrote:
> >I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so
> >obvious. And
> >John Morton was also snooping around there.
>
> What about Ireland? We know Ireland was staunchly Yorkist from the
> time when the boys' grandfather led there, and Ireland was viewed as
> almost a no-man's-land by most English. It seems to me those facts
> make it an excellent place to hide the boys, where it was highly
> unlikely anyone would search for them. Being older, Margaret might
> even have remembered being there and known who to contact for help.
>
> Regards,
> Rogue
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3281 - Release Date: 11/26/10
>

I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.

--- In , Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> It was certainly the gathering place for the Yorkist pretenders.
>
> On 26/11/2010 7:17 PM, Rogue wrote:
> >
> > At 04:48 PM 11/25/2010, Dorothea Preis wrote:
> > >I agree with Joan in that Burgundy was not ideal because it was so
> > >obvious. And
> > >John Morton was also snooping around there.
> >
> > What about Ireland? We know Ireland was staunchly Yorkist from the
> > time when the boys' grandfather led there, and Ireland was viewed as
> > almost a no-man's-land by most English. It seems to me those facts
> > make it an excellent place to hide the boys, where it was highly
> > unlikely anyone would search for them. Being older, Margaret might
> > even have remembered being there and known who to contact for help.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3281 - Release Date: 11/26/10
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.

Carol responds:

No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.

Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"

I concur with Annette. I too think the boys survived Richard and there's
an excellent chance that Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York as he had
claimed.

In addition to Annette's book, I strongly recommend "Royal Blood" by
Bertram Fields.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
wrote:
> >
> > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will
one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe
isn't absolute knowledge.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are
those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his
nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you
haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book,
"The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the
boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck
really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
>
> Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including
ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as
those of the "princes"
>

I don`t have a bias on any particular opinion whether
it favours Red Rose, White Rose, or Tudor Rose. But I
do have to wonder why the Establishments of both State
and Church refuse to allow any further examination of
the bones in Westminster Abbey.
A few DNA tests on the bones probably wouldn`t solve
the whole mystery, but they could tell us if the bones
were indeed those of the princes, and not totally
unrelated bones.
So why the reluctance? What are the secular and monarchal Establishments trying to hide?

Paul Neville.


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
>
> Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"
>

I knew someone connected with this matter and apparently the present Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being checked by autopsy. Edward V maybe, but then others would like to check Henry VIII, Henry VI, Charles I, the list goes on.

Unfortunately, the question of the disappearance of Edward V hasn't moved on much since Paul Murray Kendall's view: that it was either Richard III, Buckingham or Henry VII who had them bumped off; if Richard III didn't think them: the princes, a danger to himself this seems rather naïve: they certainly would not have accepted the illegitimacy tag and certainly would have killed him and his entourage had they been able.

However, Buckingham possibly saddled Richard with the blame for the crime, thinking that he would easily supersede the lightweight Henry Tudor who arguably had a weaker claim.

It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.


--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I don`t have a bias on any particular opinion whether
> it favours Red Rose, White Rose, or Tudor Rose. But I
> do have to wonder why the Establishments of both State
> and Church refuse to allow any further examination of
> the bones in Westminster Abbey.
> A few DNA tests on the bones probably wouldn`t solve
> the whole mystery, but they could tell us if the bones
> were indeed those of the princes, and not totally
> unrelated bones.
> So why the reluctance? What are the secular and monarchal Establishments trying to hide?
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
> >
> > Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"
> >
>

I agree with much of this but Edward V and Henry VI are emphatically not ANCESTORS of Elizabeth II. Charles I is not, although the late Princess of Wales was illegitimately descended through him - furthermore the Queen has a suspected descent from Henry VIII and a mistress, through her mother.

As for legitimate descendants, Edward V had none, Henry VI possibly had one who died in 1471, Henry VIII's last one died in 1603 and Charles I's in 1714.

Had you said COLLATERAL DESCENDANTS (those descended from a sibling) you would be right in three cases and could stretch a point about Edmund Tudor being Henry VI's STEP-brother.

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.



I knew someone connected with this matter and apparently the present Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being checked by autopsy. Edward V maybe, but then others would like to check Henry VIII, Henry VI, Charles I, the list goes on.

Unfortunately, the question of the disappearance of Edward V hasn't moved on much since Paul Murray Kendall's view: that it was either Richard III, Buckingham or Henry VII who had them bumped off; if Richard III didn't think them: the princes, a danger to himself this seems rather naïve: they certainly would not have accepted the illegitimacy tag and certainly would have killed him and his entourage had they been able.

However, Buckingham possibly saddled Richard with the blame for the crime, thinking that he would easily supersede the lightweight Henry Tudor who arguably had a weaker claim.

It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I don`t have a bias on any particular opinion whether
> it favours Red Rose, White Rose, or Tudor Rose. But I
> do have to wonder why the Establishments of both State
> and Church refuse to allow any further examination of
> the bones in Westminster Abbey.
> A few DNA tests on the bones probably wouldn`t solve
> the whole mystery, but they could tell us if the bones
> were indeed those of the princes, and not totally
> unrelated bones.
> So why the reluctance? What are the secular and monarchal Establishments trying to hide?
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
> >
> > Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"
> >
>

"vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> <snip>
> Unfortunately, the question of the disappearance of Edward V hasn't moved on much since Paul Murray Kendall's view: that it was either Richard III, Buckingham or Henry VII who had them bumped off; if Richard III didn't think them: the princes, a danger to himself this seems rather naïve: they certainly would not have accepted the illegitimacy tag and certainly would have killed him and his entourage had they been able.
<snip>

Carol responds:
I don't think that Richard needed to kill the boys (his own nephews). He certainly didn't kill Edward of Warwick, who (arguably) had a better claim than he did and who was also his nephew. I think his chief concern was an attempt to "rescue" the boys (such an attempt was actually made) and either use them as tools as Warwick used Henry VI or kill them. (Imagine what would have befallen them if they'd fallen into the hands of Tudor's followers.) It seems likely that he had them removed from the Tower for that reason. (See "The Maligned King.")

As for what would have happened if Richard had won Bosworth and the boys (or just Edward) had come of age and decided to seek revenge, the question is whether they would even have found any followers. Who would risk supporting a young and inexperienced claimant (who might be illegitimate and might be an impostor) against a strong and proven leader who would by that time have been married to the true Lancastrian heir, Joana of Portugal? Obviously, we can't know what could have happened, but I don't think that Richard was naive (except in underestimating the dangers posed by Archbishop Morton and Margaret Beaufort), and he was quite capable of dealing with a crisis, as we see at Stony Stratford.

If Perkin Warbeck really was Richard former Duke of York (and his brother Edward was dead or had disappeared), we have some idea what might have happened though we can't guess what Richard III would have done in response.

At any rate, it's fun but ultimately futile to speculate about such things. If we want to know what really happened to Richard's nephews, we should begin by looking at the bones (ignoring Sir Thomas More!). Elizabeth II won't live forever, and Charles or his son William may be more amenable to an extended--and objective--examination of the bones using modern methods.

Carol, hoping that day will come soon

true stephen, but you did miss that e2 does descend from elizabeth of york, sister to e5.
 
to most people ancestors is a broad term. it includes all "relative" connections. for the queen her bloodline goes back to willie the conk..weaving through maternal and paternal direct and collateral descent lines. the same can be said for e5.
 
and for what it's worth...i staunchly believe buckingham was the cause of the princes' demise.
 
i have to wonder about the impact on tourism, particularily to the tower.  would it drop significantly if the bones were tested with modern techinques and proven not to be the boys?
 
the tale of the missing princes generates a lot of revenues via general interest, tourism and research.
 
roslyn
 


--- On Sat, 12/4/10, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Received: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 9:16 AM


 



I agree with much of this but Edward V and Henry VI are emphatically not ANCESTORS of Elizabeth II. Charles I is not, although the late Princess of Wales was illegitimately descended through him - furthermore the Queen has a suspected descent from Henry VIII and a mistress, through her mother.

As for legitimate descendants, Edward V had none, Henry VI possibly had one who died in 1471, Henry VIII's last one died in 1603 and Charles I's in 1714.

Had you said COLLATERAL DESCENDANTS (those descended from a sibling) you would be right in three cases and could stretch a point about Edmund Tudor being Henry VI's STEP-brother.

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.

I knew someone connected with this matter and apparently the present Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being checked by autopsy. Edward V maybe, but then others would like to check Henry VIII, Henry VI, Charles I, the list goes on.

Unfortunately, the question of the disappearance of Edward V hasn't moved on much since Paul Murray Kendall's view: that it was either Richard III, Buckingham or Henry VII who had them bumped off; if Richard III didn't think them: the princes, a danger to himself this seems rather naïve: they certainly would not have accepted the illegitimacy tag and certainly would have killed him and his entourage had they been able.

However, Buckingham possibly saddled Richard with the blame for the crime, thinking that he would easily supersede the lightweight Henry Tudor who arguably had a weaker claim.

It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I don`t have a bias on any particular opinion whether
> it favours Red Rose, White Rose, or Tudor Rose. But I
> do have to wonder why the Establishments of both State
> and Church refuse to allow any further examination of
> the bones in Westminster Abbey.
> A few DNA tests on the bones probably wouldn`t solve
> the whole mystery, but they could tell us if the bones
> were indeed those of the princes, and not totally
> unrelated bones.
> So why the reluctance? What are the secular and monarchal Establishments trying to hide?
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
> >
> > Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"
> >
>

I implied that Edward V's sister, Henry VIII's sister, Charles I's sister and Henry VI's half-brother are among her ancestors. Her lines to William I and Alfred are direct, passing through the female line on occasion.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The mystery of Edward V.



true stephen, but you did miss that e2 does descend from elizabeth of york, sister to e5.

to most people ancestors is a broad term. it includes all "relative" connections. for the queen her bloodline goes back to willie the conk..weaving through maternal and paternal direct and collateral descent lines. the same can be said for e5.

and for what it's worth...i staunchly believe buckingham was the cause of the princes' demise.

i have to wonder about the impact on tourism, particularily to the tower. would it drop significantly if the bones were tested with modern techinques and proven not to be the boys?

the tale of the missing princes generates a lot of revenues via general interest, tourism and research.

roslyn


--- On Sat, 12/4/10, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Received: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 9:16 AM



I agree with much of this but Edward V and Henry VI are emphatically not ANCESTORS of Elizabeth II. Charles I is not, although the late Princess of Wales was illegitimately descended through him - furthermore the Queen has a suspected descent from Henry VIII and a mistress, through her mother.

As for legitimate descendants, Edward V had none, Henry VI possibly had one who died in 1471, Henry VIII's last one died in 1603 and Charles I's in 1714.

Had you said COLLATERAL DESCENDANTS (those descended from a sibling) you would be right in three cases and could stretch a point about Edmund Tudor being Henry VI's STEP-brother.

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.

I knew someone connected with this matter and apparently the present Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being checked by autopsy. Edward V maybe, but then others would like to check Henry VIII, Henry VI, Charles I, the list goes on.

Unfortunately, the question of the disappearance of Edward V hasn't moved on much since Paul Murray Kendall's view: that it was either Richard III, Buckingham or Henry VII who had them bumped off; if Richard III didn't think them: the princes, a danger to himself this seems rather naïve: they certainly would not have accepted the illegitimacy tag and certainly would have killed him and his entourage had they been able.

However, Buckingham possibly saddled Richard with the blame for the crime, thinking that he would easily supersede the lightweight Henry Tudor who arguably had a weaker claim.

It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I don`t have a bias on any particular opinion whether
> it favours Red Rose, White Rose, or Tudor Rose. But I
> do have to wonder why the Establishments of both State
> and Church refuse to allow any further examination of
> the bones in Westminster Abbey.
> A few DNA tests on the bones probably wouldn`t solve
> the whole mystery, but they could tell us if the bones
> were indeed those of the princes, and not totally
> unrelated bones.
> So why the reluctance? What are the secular and monarchal Establishments trying to hide?
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
> >
> > Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"
> >
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>
> It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.



Seriously...an infestation of voles in the Tower? Who came up with that notion?

I'm trying to think of a creature more harmless than a vole. Maybe a hedgehog.

Maybe this is a British vs American English situation. The voles I know in the US are tiny things like mice. Are there gigantic carnivorous voles in the British Isles?

Katy

check this group's archives for a discussion about voles a few years back. voles carry disease. i think of in our modern era the warnings about inhaling the air near mouse droppings which carry the hantavirus.
 
roslyn

--- On Sat, 12/4/10, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Received: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 11:21 AM


 





--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>
> It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.

Seriously...an infestation of voles in the Tower? Who came up with that notion?

I'm trying to think of a creature more harmless than a vole. Maybe a hedgehog.

Maybe this is a British vs American English situation. The voles I know in the US are tiny things like mice. Are there gigantic carnivorous voles in the British Isles?

Katy

sorry, i should have CLEARLY stated that the CROWN has passed via collateral and direct lines since willie the conk. i really should have known better. i have posted to this forum for several years now. every little error proves to be a feeding ground for one upmanship..doesn't it?
 
there is always someone to jump in "to show" their expertise. one should never, ever, ever write off the top of their head. their notes should be fully organised and catalogued to ensure the ease of quotation...fa la la la la la
 
oh well, my errors are a gift to those of you who feel a need to correct. i'm often too busy and sometimes just too lazy to pull the exact facts out of my files. c'est la vie.
 
by the by...i don't have a problem with corrections. i do have a problem with how the correction is given.
 
roslyn
--- On Sat, 12/4/10, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Received: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 11:19 AM


 



I implied that Edward V's sister, Henry VIII's sister, Charles I's sister and Henry VI's half-brother are among her ancestors. Her lines to William I and Alfred are direct, passing through the female line on occasion.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The mystery of Edward V.

true stephen, but you did miss that e2 does descend from elizabeth of york, sister to e5.

to most people ancestors is a broad term. it includes all "relative" connections. for the queen her bloodline goes back to willie the conk..weaving through maternal and paternal direct and collateral descent lines. the same can be said for e5.

and for what it's worth...i staunchly believe buckingham was the cause of the princes' demise.

i have to wonder about the impact on tourism, particularily to the tower. would it drop significantly if the bones were tested with modern techinques and proven not to be the boys?

the tale of the missing princes generates a lot of revenues via general interest, tourism and research.

roslyn


--- On Sat, 12/4/10, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Received: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 9:16 AM

I agree with much of this but Edward V and Henry VI are emphatically not ANCESTORS of Elizabeth II. Charles I is not, although the late Princess of Wales was illegitimately descended through him - furthermore the Queen has a suspected descent from Henry VIII and a mistress, through her mother.

As for legitimate descendants, Edward V had none, Henry VI possibly had one who died in 1471, Henry VIII's last one died in 1603 and Charles I's in 1714.

Had you said COLLATERAL DESCENDANTS (those descended from a sibling) you would be right in three cases and could stretch a point about Edmund Tudor being Henry VI's STEP-brother.

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.

I knew someone connected with this matter and apparently the present Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being checked by autopsy. Edward V maybe, but then others would like to check Henry VIII, Henry VI, Charles I, the list goes on.

Unfortunately, the question of the disappearance of Edward V hasn't moved on much since Paul Murray Kendall's view: that it was either Richard III, Buckingham or Henry VII who had them bumped off; if Richard III didn't think them: the princes, a danger to himself this seems rather naïve: they certainly would not have accepted the illegitimacy tag and certainly would have killed him and his entourage had they been able.

However, Buckingham possibly saddled Richard with the blame for the crime, thinking that he would easily supersede the lightweight Henry Tudor who arguably had a weaker claim.

It's possible the princes escaped abroad, but it's also possible, as someone once suggested, that they were overcome by an infestation of voles in the Tower.

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I don`t have a bias on any particular opinion whether
> it favours Red Rose, White Rose, or Tudor Rose. But I
> do have to wonder why the Establishments of both State
> and Church refuse to allow any further examination of
> the bones in Westminster Abbey.
> A few DNA tests on the bones probably wouldn`t solve
> the whole mystery, but they could tell us if the bones
> were indeed those of the princes, and not totally
> unrelated bones.
> So why the reluctance? What are the secular and monarchal Establishments trying to hide?
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still unsure what happened to Edward V: it may be that pigs will one day fly or that green mice control the universe, but what we believe isn't absolute knowledge.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No one here is sure what happened. The only people who are "sure" are those who are convinced (thanks to Sir Thomas More) that Richard had his nephews killed. We're simply exploring possibilities here. If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Annette Carson's book, "The Maligned King," which makes a strong case for the survival of the boys into Henry VII's reign and the possibility that Perkin Warbeck really was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.
> >
> > Carol, who thinks that additional evidence may yet be found, including ruling out the bones found *under the foundations* of a staircase as those of the "princes"
> >
>

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> check this group's archives for a discussion about voles a few years back. voles carry disease. i think of in our modern era the warnings about inhaling the air near mouse droppings which carry the hantavirus.


I will check the archives as soon as I have time.

But can you tell me, off-hand, where that vole idea originated? It sounds exactly like something Thomas More would come up with. His sense of humor ran to hyperbole like that -- making over-the-top straight-faced statements that only the people he considered intellectually worthy would recognize as a joke. I suspect that the patently ridiculous figure he gave for Edward IV's age in his History etc is another example. Still another is his seemingly earnest correspondence with Erasmus in which More frets about whether there will be a horse of sufficient mettle and spirit for him to ride in an upcoming procession. More was an atrocious horseman. He practically had to be tied in the saddle.

Voles may carry disease, but mice and rats are more likely to be vectors. Mice and rats are also much more likely to inhabit structures such as castles; voles are found in gardens and fields, chomping on vegetation.

Hantavirus may be an ancient disease that has only recently been recognized via modern scientific methods. It also could be a genuinely new disease -- it was only definitely described in 1993. Diseases mutate, and they can arise de novo.

If there was an epidemic of a disease that can be spread by rodents at the time the boys were in the Tower, I would expect it to be bubonic or pneumonic plague, which at the time woyld be indistinguishable from hantavirus. Are there records of such an epidemic in London in the 1480s?

Katy

Katy

no idea where the vole idea comes from. if i have read it before, it slips my mind. my first recollection of the theory is from a recent posting. i did a search of the forum archives to see if it had been discussed previously (it had), and the location of original the concept. no luck there.
 
there maybe someone on the list who could easily provide where the vole/tower concept orginates.
 
and tossing into the ring of discussion...the sweating sickness..it wiped out several "gentlemen" of the london city council within weeks of the arrival of h7 in 1485.
 
was the sweats a symptom of "vole poisoning"?
 
personally, i think the only vole/vermin who could have caused the demise of the princes was named buckingham.
 
roslyn

--- On Sat, 12/4/10, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: The mystery of Edward V.
To:
Received: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 1:09 PM


 





--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> check this group's archives for a discussion about voles a few years back. voles carry disease. i think of in our modern era the warnings about inhaling the air near mouse droppings which carry the hantavirus.

I will check the archives as soon as I have time.

But can you tell me, off-hand, where that vole idea originated? It sounds exactly like something Thomas More would come up with. His sense of humor ran to hyperbole like that -- making over-the-top straight-faced statements that only the people he considered intellectually worthy would recognize as a joke. I suspect that the patently ridiculous figure he gave for Edward IV's age in his History etc is another example. Still another is his seemingly earnest correspondence with Erasmus in which More frets about whether there will be a horse of sufficient mettle and spirit for him to ride in an upcoming procession. More was an atrocious horseman. He practically had to be tied in the saddle.

Voles may carry disease, but mice and rats are more likely to be vectors. Mice and rats are also much more likely to inhabit structures such as castles; voles are found in gardens and fields, chomping on vegetation.

Hantavirus may be an ancient disease that has only recently been recognized via modern scientific methods. It also could be a genuinely new disease -- it was only definitely described in 1993. Diseases mutate, and they can arise de novo.

If there was an epidemic of a disease that can be spread by rodents at the time the boys were in the Tower, I would expect it to be bubonic or pneumonic plague, which at the time woyld be indistinguishable from hantavirus. Are there records of such an epidemic in London in the 1480s?

Katy

Katy

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

> and tossing into the ring of discussion...the sweating sickness..it wiped out several "gentlemen" of the london city council within weeks of the arrival of h7 in 1485.
>  
> was the sweats a symptom of "vole poisoning"?

The sweating sickness seems to remain a mystery, but I don't think voles can be blamed.
 
> personally, i think the only vole/vermin who could have caused the demise of the princes was named buckingham.

Well said.

Katy

Vermeertwo said... "the present Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors
being checked by autopsy. Edward V maybe, but then others would like to check
Henry VIII, Henry VI, Charles I, the list goes on."

But DNA testing of the bones wouldn`t change the issue of QEII`s ancestry one
way or the other. Any result would only indicate if they are the lost princes or
otherwise. Admittedly the DNA would need to be tested against a known source,
but that source doesn`t have to be a living person. A credible dead source would
suffice even though there would need to be another exhumation of one of the
princes` relatives. Would that be too much to ask to solve a 525 year old
mystery? I would hardly consider gathering a little DNA, if done with reverence,
tact and respect, as despoiling a grave.


Roslyn said... "i have to wonder about the impact on tourism, particularily to
the tower. would it drop significantly if the bones were tested with modern
techinques and proven not to be the boys?"

The Tower of London has a history dating back over 900 years, the history at
hand is only a miniscule part of the whole. I wouldn`t think the partial solving
of just one of the Tower`s many mysteries would damage the tourist trade one
iota. If the bones are found not to be those of the princes, then the question
arises as to whose bones they are. One mystery closes, another opens. But we
would be a little further to solving the mystery of the princes, and many
speculative ideas could be permanently disregarded.

Paul Neville.

Paul Neville wrote:
<snip> Admittedly the DNA would need to be tested against a known source, but that source doesn`t have to be a living person. A credible dead source would suffice even though there would need to be another exhumation of one of the princes` relatives. Would that be too much to ask to solve a 525 year old mystery? I would hardly consider gathering a little DNA, if done with reverence, tact and respect, as despoiling a grave.

<snip>

> The Tower of London has a history dating back over 900 years, the history at hand is only a miniscule part of the whole. I wouldn`t think the partial solving of just one of the Tower`s many mysteries would damage the tourist trade one iota. If the bones are found not to be those of the princes, then the question arises as to whose bones they are. One mystery closes, another opens. But we would be a little further to solving the mystery of the princes, and many speculative ideas could be permanently disregarded.

Carol responds:

I agree on all counts. And why not use their own father as the ancestor? Edward IV's tomb was opened in 1789 and a lock of hair (still extant) was removed. (See http://makinghistory.sal.org.uk/page.php?cat=2 ). Why not test their DNA against that? Or, if hair won't do, why not open it again, check the DNA, especially the Y chromosome, or check Edward's skull for congenital missing teeth if the DNA is for some reason unusable? If Elizabeth Woodville's remains are extant, they could check the mitochondrial DNA as well and confirm the results as the "princes" or someone else altogether

I doubt that the true story would hurt Tower tourism in the (to me probable) event that the bones are not those of Edward and Richard. As you say, the bones (whoever they belong to) would just be a new curiosity. And if no one cares about ancient sacrificial victims (or whatever the bones turn out to be), there were still plenty of deaths and imprisonments in the Tower, many of them in Tudor times, to keep tourism going.

Carol, who used to believe that Buckingham did it but is now convinced that the boys outlived Richard III

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> r
>
> I doubt that the true story would hurt Tower tourism in the (to me probable) event that the bones are not those of Edward and Richard. As you say, the bones (whoever they belong to) would just be a new curiosity. And if no one cares about ancient sacrificial victims (or whatever the bones turn out to be), there were still plenty of deaths and imprisonments in the Tower, many of them in Tudor times, to keep tourism going.


In 2007 I took the tour of the Tower of London conducted by one of the Beefeaters. The story of the "lost princes" was barely mentioned, and it was treated rather humorously ("the poor boys and their little dog, Spot..." and our guide was careful to point out that there is no evidence that Richard III had anything to do with their disappearance.

There is a cutaway section of the wall of the White Tower showing a blocked-off section of spiral staircase with a plaque stating that the bones of the boys were supposedly discovered under just such stairs. (I posted a photo in this group's Photos.)

When you look at them, what is clear is that it would not be possible to bury anyone under the stairs. There is no "under the stairs" because like all the stairs within the walls and the larger ones in each of the corner towers of the Tower and most other castles, they are continuous spirals. What is underneath the steps is the headroom of the turn below.

There was no "under the stairs" of the one that lead from the royal apartments on the second level inside the White Tower along one wall up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above, either. Those were a flight of steps, a landing, and another flight, constructed of timber during the time in question. Probably those stairs were hung with drapes or such to make them more attractive, but what was under them was open space.

Thomas More probably never set foot inside the White Tower in his life and did not know the facts about the stairs inside. There would be no reason for him to do so. The cold 600-year-old place was no longer in use as a royal residence during the time he was a member of the government. And in any case his occupation would not have taken him into the old Tower, then used as a storehouse. He probably was envisioning the interior of the White Tower as looking something like that of Whitehall or other modern (for their time) Tudor buildings when he wrote up his account of what happened to the York scions. He wouldn't have realized that there us no place to bury bodies "under the stairs" inside the White Tower.

Katy