Re: Mystery of Edward V

pneville49 wrote: "What I can't figure out is that if the Princes were taken somewhere to safety by whomever, how was their presence in the somewhere kept secret at the time, and indeed right up to the present day?"


Trying to find two people, one in England and the other in Burgundy, would require dedicating a lot of time, people and money to the effort.
By separating the boys, even moving one of them across the Channel, Richard more than doubled the amount of time and effort required to find them. Edward could have been sent to the country home of some supporter and introduced there, when/if any questions arose, as the son of a deceased friend; it wasn't an unusual occurrence. Much the same would have occurred with Richard in Burgundy, or Portugal as it was suggested in the thread.
Once hidden, the boys could remain undetected as long as they refrained from announcing their identities. Which is exactly what happened with Richard until he announced he was the Duke of York, younger son of Edward IV. Had he never made that announcement who would have ever known his claimed parentage? The same applies to Edward who, for whatever reason, appears to never have made such an announcement.
No medieval monarchy had the resources to mount a house-by-house, "Where are your papers"-type of search. The government of Henry Tudor would have had to rely on informants and the promise of large rewards; which is what they did AFTER Richard proclaimed himself to be the Duke of York. By then, of course, it had become a matter of national/Tudor security.
The only reason there seems to be such a "mystery" about Edward and Richard is because Henry Tudor could only keep the throne he'd gotten through treachery by slandering his predecessor with accusations of murder and then casting doubt on any claimant who did appear. We should also remember that any "history" published under the Tudors had to be reviewed by a member of the King's Council (Lord Chamberlain or Lord Chancellor, I don't recall which), so there was little chance of anything appearing which didn't follow the official line.
Nor would anyone who supported the Yorkists be likely to leave any written evidence about Edward or Richard lying around. Such information could more easily, and safely, be passed by word-of-mouth and had the advantage of forcing the government to rely on hearsay in any accusations of treason.
Didn't stop Henry Tudor, of course...

The "sweating sickness" topic was discussed at the 2009 American Branch AGM in Las Vegas by Kate Skegg, who has a background in microbiology. Her suggesion was that the disease came over from France with the troops of Henry Tudor and was from rabbits. Evidently rabbit-raising for food was more of a French "thing" but was done in monasteries and in the homes of the nobility in England. (Norman roots, you know.) It was a strange feature of this disease is that it targeted the rich and powerful more than the "common folk". Rabbits were not "wiid" in England at the time. I believe Kate has posted her paper on the American Branch site somewhere. It was very interesting.

I don't remember a serious discussion about voles. My kitty used to bring them to me as presents. You know how kitties are......

L.M.L.,
Janet T.

--- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@...> wrote:

> I don't remember a serious discussion about voles. My kitty used to bring them to me as presents. You know how kitties are......


Mine, too. She'd bring one in alive and unscathed, squeaking in such a high note that it was almost beyond the range of human hearing. What she really wanted was to trade the vole for a cat treat...while she was occupied with that, I'd take the uninjured vole outside and set it free.

I suspect she caught the same vole every day.

Poor little vole! Glad you set it free, Katy ;)

Jennifer

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@> wrote:
>
> > I don't remember a serious discussion about voles. My kitty used to bring them to me as presents. You know how kitties are......
>
>
> Mine, too. She'd bring one in alive and unscathed, squeaking in such a high note that it was almost beyond the range of human hearing. What she really wanted was to trade the vole for a cat treat...while she was occupied with that, I'd take the uninjured vole outside and set it free.
>
> I suspect she caught the same vole every day.
>

Queen Elizabeth II may be awkward about autopsies regarding direct or distant cousin, relatives, because of embarrassment to the royal family: a programme recently indicated that her grandfather George V was `helped on the way' when he was dying.

I don't think the `Vole the Ripper' idea should be taken seriously, but the idea of general disease should be: Richard III's legitimate son died aged 10 as one example. What was life expectancy in the 1480s?

If the bones were found to be Edward V and his brother this wouldn't remove the guilt from possibly Buckingham: he betrayed Edward V and his Woodville kin, then betrayed Richard III and then tried to a rapprochement with the Woodvilles and Henry Tudor, who he'd probably never met. I'd imagine that a Duke (of Buckingham) probably thought himself superior to an earl (of Richmond with doubtful legitimacy!) Buckingham exudes slime, egged on by an equally slimy Morton, as a character (his son tried to make a move on Henry VIII,) so leaving Richard with a fait accompli or persuading him to remove potential foes, wouldn't surprise me: a contemporary record suggests as much.


--- In , dances_with_spaniels <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Poor little vole! Glad you set it free, Katy ;)
>
> Jennifer
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't remember a serious discussion about voles. My kitty used to bring them to me as presents. You know how kitties are......
> >
> >
> > Mine, too. She'd bring one in alive and unscathed, squeaking in such a high note that it was almost beyond the range of human hearing. What she really wanted was to trade the vole for a cat treat...while she was occupied with that, I'd take the uninjured vole outside and set it free.
> >
> > I suspect she caught the same vole every day.
> >
>

With all due respect to vermeertwo, I find the suggestion that "Queen Elizabeth II may be awkward about autopsies regarding direct or distant cousin, relatives, because of embarrassment to the royal family" utterly ludicrous.

The royal ancestry is full of "embarrassing moments" from its inception, including the homosexuality of Edward II to the Nazi sympathies of his namesake Edwatd VIII. Royal families like any other families, just cope with embarrassment.

DNA tests on the "princes`" bones would only be for identification purposes and wouldn`t affect ancestry one iota. Even if the bones were found to be those of the princes this would in no way prove the guilt or otherwise of Richard III`s complicity in their deaths or disposal of the bodies. Conversely any finding that the bones are not those of the princes wouldn`t prove his innocence. But the tests would put to bed the arguments relating to identity of the bones, at least as far as the princes are concerned. So why all the adverse fuss and the negativity of allowing such tests?

I`ve always understood that the main reasons for the existence of The Richard III Society (which, I`m led to believe, includes prominent members of the aristocracy and high officialdom) is to prove Richard`s innocence of the murders of his two nephews, and on the lesser points of his right to the throne. So why isn`t the Society doing more to insist on such modern forensic tests?

Could it be that the results of such tests wouldn`t be an ancestry embarrassment for the incumbent monarch, but that they would embarrass, and possibly damage the reputations, and monetary wherewithal of hitherto eminent writers, historians, specialists, and others, on both sides of the Ricardian fence. Is that where the fear of truth lies?

Paul Neville.

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Queen Elizabeth II may be awkward about autopsies regarding direct or distant cousin, relatives, because of embarrassment to the royal family: a programme recently indicated that her grandfather George V was `helped on the way' when he was dying.
>
> I don't think the `Vole the Ripper' idea should be taken seriously, but the idea of general disease should be: Richard III's legitimate son died aged 10 as one example. What was life expectancy in the 1480s?
>
> If the bones were found to be Edward V and his brother this wouldn't remove the guilt from possibly Buckingham: he betrayed Edward V and his Woodville kin, then betrayed Richard III and then tried to a rapprochement with the Woodvilles and Henry Tudor, who he'd probably never met. I'd imagine that a Duke (of Buckingham) probably thought himself superior to an earl (of Richmond with doubtful legitimacy!) Buckingham exudes slime, egged on by an equally slimy Morton, as a character (his son tried to make a move on Henry VIII,) so leaving Richard with a fait accompli or persuading him to remove potential foes, wouldn't surprise me: a contemporary record suggests as much.
>
>
> --- In , dances_with_spaniels <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Poor little vole! Glad you set it free, Katy ;)
> >
> > Jennifer
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't remember a serious discussion about voles. My kitty used to bring them to me as presents. You know how kitties are......
> > >
> > >
> > > Mine, too. She'd bring one in alive and unscathed, squeaking in such a high note that it was almost beyond the range of human hearing. What she really wanted was to trade the vole for a cat treat...while she was occupied with that, I'd take the uninjured vole outside and set it free.
> > >
> > > I suspect she caught the same vole every day.
> > >
> >
>

The point is, Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar and thus under the direct control of QE2. Not the Government, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Richard III Society.

And the Queen - for whatever reason - has decided that she doesn't want her ancestors/relatives dug up and messed around with.

Good luck with 'insisting' that the Queen changes her mind. I think St.Jude is the patron of lost causes, maybe a prayer to him would help.

I think all of us here would like the bones DNA tested, I certainly would as I am confident they do not belong to the two lads. However, it ain't going to happen any time soon. In my view the R3 Society has sensibly recognised that no amount of 'pressure' from them is going to change things.

Brian W



--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> With all due respect to vermeertwo, I find the suggestion that "Queen Elizabeth II may be awkward about autopsies regarding direct or distant cousin, relatives, because of embarrassment to the royal family" utterly ludicrous.
>
> The royal ancestry is full of "embarrassing moments" from its inception, including the homosexuality of Edward II to the Nazi sympathies of his namesake Edwatd VIII. Royal families like any other families, just cope with embarrassment.
>
> DNA tests on the "princes`" bones would only be for identification purposes and wouldn`t affect ancestry one iota. Even if the bones were found to be those of the princes this would in no way prove the guilt or otherwise of Richard III`s complicity in their deaths or disposal of the bodies. Conversely any finding that the bones are not those of the princes wouldn`t prove his innocence. But the tests would put to bed the arguments relating to identity of the bones, at least as far as the princes are concerned. So why all the adverse fuss and the negativity of allowing such tests?
>
> I`ve always understood that the main reasons for the existence of The Richard III Society (which, I`m led to believe, includes prominent members of the aristocracy and high officialdom) is to prove Richard`s innocence of the murders of his two nephews, and on the lesser points of his right to the throne. So why isn`t the Society doing more to insist on such modern forensic tests?
>
> Could it be that the results of such tests wouldn`t be an ancestry embarrassment for the incumbent monarch, but that they would embarrass, and possibly damage the reputations, and monetary wherewithal of hitherto eminent writers, historians, specialists, and others, on both sides of the Ricardian fence. Is that where the fear of truth lies?
>
> Paul Neville.
>

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
I think all of us here would like the bones DNA tested, I certainly would as I am confident they do not belong to the two lads. However, it ain't going to happen any time soon. In my view the R3 Society has sensibly recognised that no amount of 'pressure' from them is going to change things.


Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....

Katy

Even with all her wealth and majesty, the Queen is still a public servant in receipt of public monies, and as such should be free from any kind of cover-up. I can understand her being finicky about exhuming and mucking about with relatives recently deceased, even recent ancestors, but we`re talkng about events and "ancestors" of 500+ years ago only known from a wide family-tree spread across many countries and family branches. The tests would be purely a means towards final identification of two mediaeval sets of bones. It`s not as if the royal line is threatened.
I don`t have the clout to change the monarch`s mind, neither I`m sure does anyone on this forum, but I find the excuses of the Establishment totally ridiculous, and I can`t believe more pressure can`t be applied by someone or some society which does have clout. Until that happens I`ll be suspicious of any possible ulterior motives.

Paul Neville.

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> The point is, Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar and thus under the direct control of QE2. Not the Government, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Richard III Society.
>
> And the Queen - for whatever reason - has decided that she doesn't want her ancestors/relatives dug up and messed around with.
>
> Good luck with 'insisting' that the Queen changes her mind. I think St.Jude is the patron of lost causes, maybe a prayer to him would help.
>
> I think all of us here would like the bones DNA tested, I certainly would as I am confident they do not belong to the two lads. However, it ain't going to happen any time soon. In my view the R3 Society has sensibly recognised that no amount of 'pressure' from them is going to change things.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > With all due respect to vermeertwo, I find the suggestion that "Queen Elizabeth II may be awkward about autopsies regarding direct or distant cousin, relatives, because of embarrassment to the royal family" utterly ludicrous.
> >
> > The royal ancestry is full of "embarrassing moments" from its inception, including the homosexuality of Edward II to the Nazi sympathies of his namesake Edwatd VIII. Royal families like any other families, just cope with embarrassment.
> >
> > DNA tests on the "princes`" bones would only be for identification purposes and wouldn`t affect ancestry one iota. Even if the bones were found to be those of the princes this would in no way prove the guilt or otherwise of Richard III`s complicity in their deaths or disposal of the bodies. Conversely any finding that the bones are not those of the princes wouldn`t prove his innocence. But the tests would put to bed the arguments relating to identity of the bones, at least as far as the princes are concerned. So why all the adverse fuss and the negativity of allowing such tests?
> >
> > I`ve always understood that the main reasons for the existence of The Richard III Society (which, I`m led to believe, includes prominent members of the aristocracy and high officialdom) is to prove Richard`s innocence of the murders of his two nephews, and on the lesser points of his right to the throne. So why isn`t the Society doing more to insist on such modern forensic tests?
> >
> > Could it be that the results of such tests wouldn`t be an ancestry embarrassment for the incumbent monarch, but that they would embarrass, and possibly damage the reputations, and monetary wherewithal of hitherto eminent writers, historians, specialists, and others, on both sides of the Ricardian fence. Is that where the fear of truth lies?
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
>

Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible change of attitude.

Richard G


--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....
>
> Katy
>

I suppose it`s a case of public awareness, The Tudor version of events have been so ingrained into the public mind as being the truth that it`s difficult to alter it. The Establishment seems quite prepared to let things stand.
Isn`t The Richard III Society somewhat guilty of simply preaching to the converted, rather than trying to spread the message on a wider basis. Persistent publicity and public opinion can alter anything. It sure altered the Queen`s mind regarding the flying of the Royal Standard at half-mast after the death of Princess Di.

Paul Neville.


--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible change of attitude.
>
> Richard G
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

You could say that - he's the patron.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V



Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible change of attitude.

Richard G

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....
>
> Katy
>

To be absolutely correct, the Royal Standard does not fly at half mast because as one monarch dies, another succeeds.  It was agreed that the Union Flag would be flown at half-mast over Buckingham Palace.  This was a departure from usual practice because when the Queen is not at BP, the mast usually remained unused.

--- On Tue, 7/12/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:


From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
To:
Date: Tuesday, 7 December, 2010, 17:54


 



I suppose it`s a case of public awareness, The Tudor version of events have been so ingrained into the public mind as being the truth that it`s difficult to alter it. The Establishment seems quite prepared to let things stand.
Isn`t The Richard III Society somewhat guilty of simply preaching to the converted, rather than trying to spread the message on a wider basis. Persistent publicity and public opinion can alter anything. It sure altered the Queen`s mind regarding the flying of the Royal Standard at half-mast after the death of Princess Di.

Paul Neville.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible change of attitude.
>
> Richard G
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500 years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure there have been none in recent memory.

I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
To:

> Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> change of attitude.
>
> Richard G
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> Society....>
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>

Exactly my point Pamela. The Queen was persuaded by public opinion to go against convention.

Paul Neville.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> To be absolutely correct, the Royal Standard does not fly at half mast because as one monarch dies, another succeeds.  It was agreed that the Union Flag would be flown at half-mast over Buckingham Palace.  This was a departure from usual practice because when the Queen is not at BP, the mast usually remained unused.
>
> --- On Tue, 7/12/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
> Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 7 December, 2010, 17:54
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I suppose it`s a case of public awareness, The Tudor version of events have been so ingrained into the public mind as being the truth that it`s difficult to alter it. The Establishment seems quite prepared to let things stand.
> Isn`t The Richard III Society somewhat guilty of simply preaching to the converted, rather than trying to spread the message on a wider basis. Persistent publicity and public opinion can alter anything. It sure altered the Queen`s mind regarding the flying of the Royal Standard at half-mast after the death of Princess Di.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible change of attitude.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including those of royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister) comes to mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old. However it begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves wish to be identified?
It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can the Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without furnishing proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.

Paul Neville.


--- In , Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500 years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure there have been none in recent memory.
>
> I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> To:
>
> > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> > change of attitude.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> > Society....>
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

okay..howabout religious/cultural belief as the next likely excuse? currently, people around the globe are demanding the repatriation of artifacts and relicts from their home country/territory.
 
in canada it makes the news every few months that ancestors and ancestral items are being returned to the first immigrants..more popularily known as first nations people. i've read that some middle eastern countries are negotiating and demanding the return of items of antiquity that where taken from the time of the crusades to napoleon to present day.
 
"everyone" seems to be jumping on this politically correct bandwagon. it could be a while before this current fad runs its course. kind of makes you think of the suppression of knowledge imposed by the vatican for centuries.
 
personally, i see nothing wrong with doing dna testing, but i'm not an 80 plus year old queen.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 12/7/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:


From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
To:
Received: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:05 PM


 



Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including those of royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister) comes to mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old. However it begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves wish to be identified?
It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can the Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without furnishing proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.

Paul Neville.

--- In , Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500 years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure there have been none in recent memory.
>
> I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> To:
>
> > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> > change of attitude.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> > Society....>
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I can't comment on the Queen's state of mind regarding the DNA examination of
the bones. Though I believe that Prince Philip gave some of his DNA which
helped in determining whether the bones found in Siberia were those of the last
Tsar and his family or not, so apparently they didn't feel squeamish about the
much more recently deceased Russian relatives.

As to "simply preaching to the converted", our branch (NSW) has during the last
year embarked on a campaign to "spread the message on a wider basis" and we give
talks to groups like U3A (University of the Third Age), National Seniors,
schools etc. And though these talks are always very well received, they have
unfortunately so far not resulted in more members. However, at least the people
hear a different opinion and maybe take the Tudor version with a bit more
skepticism in future.

Cheers, Dorothea





________________________________
From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, 8 December, 2010 4:54:28 AM
Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V


I suppose it`s a case of public awareness, The Tudor version of events have been
so ingrained into the public mind as being the truth that it`s difficult to
alter it. The Establishment seems quite prepared to let things stand.

Isn`t The Richard III Society somewhat guilty of simply preaching to the
converted, rather than trying to spread the message on a wider basis. Persistent
publicity and public opinion can alter anything. It sure altered the Queen`s
mind regarding the flying of the Royal Standard at half-mast after the death of
Princess Di.

Paul Neville.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested in the Richard
>III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious person to ask the Queen for
>permission to extract DNA from the bones. However, if she is opposed to the
>idea, then neither her cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind.
>Ergo we will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible change of
>attitude.
>
>
> Richard G
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
>wrote:
> >
> > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III Society....
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

I agree Roslyn. The bones have already been dug up, examined, buried, dug up again and re-examined, both times with a deal of ineptitude. Why not do it one more time and this time do the job properly and with modern forensics? Then the bones can hopefully and finally be put to rest.
Both Ricardians and those who believe in the Tudor version of events unceasingly, mostly with futility, examine, re-examine, interpret and re-interpret, mediaeval and other documents in the hope of getting to that Eureka moment. In the meantime they`re all unable or unwilling to follow the basic investigation procedure of any murder. Namely identity of victim and cause and time of death. The use of DNA, carbon dating, and other modern forensic techniques could possibly discover those, yet the bones are kept out of reach for one idiotic reason or another. I realise that monarchy has to follow certain criteris, traditions and protocol etc., but I always considered QE II as a rather modern lady despite her age. I`m beginning to have second thoughts on that.

Paul Neville.


--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> okay..howabout religious/cultural belief as the next likely excuse? currently, people around the globe are demanding the repatriation of artifacts and relicts from their home country/territory.
>  
> in canada it makes the news every few months that ancestors and ancestral items are being returned to the first immigrants..more popularily known as first nations people. i've read that some middle eastern countries are negotiating and demanding the return of items of antiquity that where taken from the time of the crusades to napoleon to present day.
>  
> "everyone" seems to be jumping on this politically correct bandwagon. it could be a while before this current fad runs its course. kind of makes you think of the suppression of knowledge imposed by the vatican for centuries.
>  
> personally, i see nothing wrong with doing dna testing, but i'm not an 80 plus year old queen.
>  
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 12/7/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
> Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:05 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including those of royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister) comes to mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old. However it begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves wish to be identified?
> It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can the Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without furnishing proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
> --- In , Angie Telepenko <gooble@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500 years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure there have been none in recent memory.
> >
> > I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Richard <RSG_Corris@>
> > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > To:
> >
> > > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> > > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> > > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> > > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> > > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> > > change of attitude.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> > > Society....>
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree about you about the new-found concern with cultural objects, but
I think the one main difference between the examples you've cited and
the bones at Westminster is whether or not it is the culture who
produces the objects which is actually removing the objects from their
original settings. In other words, who has stewardship over the objects?
In the case of the Westminster bones, it is those of us who share an
English background, of which the queen is one, who are the cultural
stewards.

In the case of the Westminster bones, my concern is that opening the urn
will make it impossible to stop people from disturbing other remains for
whatever reason. As was mentioned earlier, there is no end to the
controversies surrounding the British monarchy; for example, who is
buried in Edward II's tomb at Gloucester?

On 07/12/2010 5:36 PM, fayre rose wrote:
>
> okay..howabout religious/cultural belief as the next likely excuse?
> currently, people around the globe are demanding the repatriation of
> artifacts and relicts from their home country/territory.
>
> in canada it makes the news every few months that ancestors and
> ancestral items are being returned to the first immigrants..more
> popularily known as first nations people. i've read that some middle
> eastern countries are negotiating and demanding the return of items of
> antiquity that where taken from the time of the crusades to napoleon
> to present day.
>
> "everyone" seems to be jumping on this politically correct bandwagon.
> it could be a while before this current fad runs its course. kind of
> makes you think of the suppression of knowledge imposed by the vatican
> for centuries.
>
> personally, i see nothing wrong with doing dna testing, but i'm not an
> 80 plus year old queen.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 12/7/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...
> <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co..uk>> wrote:
>
> From: pneville49 <pneville49@...
> <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:05 PM
>
>
>
> Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including those of
> royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister) comes to
> mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old
> bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old. However it
> begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves wish to
> be identified?
> It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can the
> Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without furnishing
> proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Angie Telepenko
> <gooble@...> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they
> do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it
> would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500
> years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other
> examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure
> there have been none in recent memory.
> >
> > I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see
> Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite
> interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it
> would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could
> possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> > > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> > > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> > > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> > > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> > > change of attitude.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "oregon_katy"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> > > Society....>
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3302 - Release Date: 12/07/10
>

Another example involving controversy over human remains concerns whose
bones are being represented as the bones of Clarence and Isabel at
Tewksbury. I saw the bones in 1975, and was assured they were the real
McCoy. Now people aren't so sure.

I agree with Bill when he says..."In the case of the Westminster bones, my concern is that opening the urn will make it impossible to stop people from disturbing other remains for whatever reason. As was mentioned earlier, there is no end to the controversies surrounding the British monarchy; for example, who is buried in Edward II's tomb at Gloucester?"... but in the case of Richard III there are charges of murder laid against him, an utterly unproven distortion and depravity of character, a further charge of usurption of the throne, and everything else that the Tudors could throw at him. Obviously discovering that the Westminster bones did or didn`t belong to the princes may not prove or disprove his guilt or innocence, but I think he is owed justice in any way possible. And the princes themselves are owed the same. Modern forensics may help to bring that justice just a little closer.

Paul Neville.


--- In , Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> I agree about you about the new-found concern with cultural objects, but
> I think the one main difference between the examples you've cited and
> the bones at Westminster is whether or not it is the culture who
> produces the objects which is actually removing the objects from their
> original settings. In other words, who has stewardship over the objects?
> In the case of the Westminster bones, it is those of us who share an
> English background, of which the queen is one, who are the cultural
> stewards.
>
> In the case of the Westminster bones, my concern is that opening the urn
> will make it impossible to stop people from disturbing other remains for
> whatever reason. As was mentioned earlier, there is no end to the
> controversies surrounding the British monarchy; for example, who is
> buried in Edward II's tomb at Gloucester?
>
> On 07/12/2010 5:36 PM, fayre rose wrote:
> >
> > okay..howabout religious/cultural belief as the next likely excuse?
> > currently, people around the globe are demanding the repatriation of
> > artifacts and relicts from their home country/territory.
> >
> > in canada it makes the news every few months that ancestors and
> > ancestral items are being returned to the first immigrants..more
> > popularily known as first nations people. i've read that some middle
> > eastern countries are negotiating and demanding the return of items of
> > antiquity that where taken from the time of the crusades to napoleon
> > to present day.
> >
> > "everyone" seems to be jumping on this politically correct bandwagon.
> > it could be a while before this current fad runs its course. kind of
> > makes you think of the suppression of knowledge imposed by the vatican
> > for centuries.
> >
> > personally, i see nothing wrong with doing dna testing, but i'm not an
> > 80 plus year old queen.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Tue, 12/7/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...
> > <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co..uk>> wrote:
> >
> > From: pneville49 <pneville49@...
> > <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Received: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:05 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including those of
> > royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister) comes to
> > mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old
> > bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old. However it
> > begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves wish to
> > be identified?
> > It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can the
> > Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without furnishing
> > proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Angie Telepenko
> > <gooble@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they
> > do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it
> > would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500
> > years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other
> > examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure
> > there have been none in recent memory.
> > >
> > > I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see
> > Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite
> > interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it
> > would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could
> > possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Richard <RSG_Corris@>
> > > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> > > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> > > > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > > > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> > > > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> > > > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> > > > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> > > > change of attitude.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> > > > Society....>
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3302 - Release Date: 12/07/10
> >
>
>
>
>
>

From correspondence with a doctor who should be in the know, my understanding is that the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks the Tanner and Wright investigation was sufficient to conclude the bones were those of Edward V: it was found that they were bones of children of the right ages, there was a dental congruence `consanguinity' which indicated they were of the same family, velvet found around one of the skeletal arm remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that rules Roman children out. You may recall that Charles II had no doubt about the identity of the bones, that's why they went straight Westminster Abbey. The Dean wishes to respect the Queen's wishes to not disturb the remains of ancestors (who are waiting for the resurrection.) There have been sufficient postings on this website: regarding Edward II, Clarence, to indicate that there could be a factory conveyor belt of autopsies once the dam is breached.

The following is the position as it stands:

`Skeletons which are presumed to be those of the Princes in the Tower were discovered in 1674, when workmen employed in demolishing a staircase within the Tower of London, leading to the chapel of the White Tower, made the discovery of the bones of two children in an elm chest, at around a depth of ten feet. They were originally thrown aside with some rubble until their significance as the possible bones of the two princes was recognized. Charles II, then the reigning monarch, asked the architect Sir Christopher Wren to design a white marble container and they were reverently placed in the Henry VII chapel at Westminster Abbey, close to the tomb of the Prince's sister, Elizabeth of York.

These bones were subject to a medical examination in 1933, which was conducted by Lawrence Tanner, the Abbey archivist, Professor William Wright, one of the leading anatomists of his day, and George Northcroft, then president of the Dental Association. Tanner and Wright concluded that they believed these were the bones of two children, the eldest aged twelve to thirteen and the younger nine to eleven, they further stated that a blood stain on the elder skull was consistent with death by suffocation, and that congenital missing teeth and certain bilateral Wormian bones of unusual size on both crania were evidence of consanguinity. The lower jaw of the elder child exhibited extensive evidence of the bone disease, osteomyelitis.
The Tanner and Wright report has been subject to expert scrutiny on many occasions since then. Modern conclusions vary. There is consensus of opinion among modern experts that Wright's determination of the ages of the skeletons and the age differential between the two sets of bones is approximately correct, although great differences of age calculated by the development of bones and teeth has been observed in studies. Later reports claim to be unable to determine the sex of either skeleton. Determination of consanguinity by congenitally missing teeth or bilateral Wormian bones remains disputed. As regards the staining which is present on one of the skulls, it is unproven that it is actually a blood stain and modern experts deny it being proof of suffocation. In the absence of modern carbon dating or DNA analysis on the forensic evidence of the bones, it is still not possible to say that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother. The Abbey authorities have to date refused a second examination.'


--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Bill when he says..."In the case of the Westminster bones, my concern is that opening the urn will make it impossible to stop people from disturbing other remains for whatever reason. As was mentioned earlier, there is no end to the controversies surrounding the British monarchy; for example, who is buried in Edward II's tomb at Gloucester?"... but in the case of Richard III there are charges of murder laid against him, an utterly unproven distortion and depravity of character, a further charge of usurption of the throne, and everything else that the Tudors could throw at him. Obviously discovering that the Westminster bones did or didn`t belong to the princes may not prove or disprove his guilt or innocence, but I think he is owed justice in any way possible. And the princes themselves are owed the same. Modern forensics may help to bring that justice just a little closer.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
> --- In , Bill Barber <bbarber@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree about you about the new-found concern with cultural objects, but
> > I think the one main difference between the examples you've cited and
> > the bones at Westminster is whether or not it is the culture who
> > produces the objects which is actually removing the objects from their
> > original settings. In other words, who has stewardship over the objects?
> > In the case of the Westminster bones, it is those of us who share an
> > English background, of which the queen is one, who are the cultural
> > stewards.
> >
> > In the case of the Westminster bones, my concern is that opening the urn
> > will make it impossible to stop people from disturbing other remains for
> > whatever reason. As was mentioned earlier, there is no end to the
> > controversies surrounding the British monarchy; for example, who is
> > buried in Edward II's tomb at Gloucester?
> >
> > On 07/12/2010 5:36 PM, fayre rose wrote:
> > >
> > > okay..howabout religious/cultural belief as the next likely excuse?
> > > currently, people around the globe are demanding the repatriation of
> > > artifacts and relicts from their home country/territory.
> > >
> > > in canada it makes the news every few months that ancestors and
> > > ancestral items are being returned to the first immigrants..more
> > > popularily known as first nations people. i've read that some middle
> > > eastern countries are negotiating and demanding the return of items of
> > > antiquity that where taken from the time of the crusades to napoleon
> > > to present day.
> > >
> > > "everyone" seems to be jumping on this politically correct bandwagon.
> > > it could be a while before this current fad runs its course. kind of
> > > makes you think of the suppression of knowledge imposed by the vatican
> > > for centuries.
> > >
> > > personally, i see nothing wrong with doing dna testing, but i'm not an
> > > 80 plus year old queen.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 12/7/10, pneville49 <pneville49@
> > > <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co..uk>> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: pneville49 <pneville49@
> > > <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> > > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Received: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:05 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including those of
> > > royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister) comes to
> > > mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old
> > > bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old. However it
> > > begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves wish to
> > > be identified?
> > > It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can the
> > > Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without furnishing
> > > proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Paul Neville.
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Angie Telepenko
> > > <gooble@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if they
> > > do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid it
> > > would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in 500
> > > years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been other
> > > examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty sure
> > > there have been none in recent memory.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I can see
> > > Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's quite
> > > interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know if it
> > > would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it could
> > > possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know now.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Richard <RSG_Corris@>
> > > > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> > > > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester interested
> > > > > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > > > > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from the
> > > > > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither her
> > > > > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo we
> > > > > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a possible
> > > > > change of attitude.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "oregon_katy"
> > > > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard III
> > > > > Society....>
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> > > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3302 - Release Date: 12/07/10
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I must disagree. In general, Tanner a Wright have been shown to not have
proven anything and the issue of consanguinity has been subsequently
disproved. There is nothing in the contemporary documentation that
suggests that Edward V had a diseased jaw as one of the skulls does
show. If you look at my blog article
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-busting-series-did-edward-v-hav\
e.html> and comments about Edward V and whether or not he had diseased
jaw, you will see that there is enough real evidence to doubt that these
bones could have been those of the princes.

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:
>
> From correspondence with a doctor who should be in the know, my
understanding is that the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks the Tanner
and Wright investigation was sufficient to conclude the bones were those
of Edward V: it was found that they were bones of children of the right
ages, there was a dental congruence `consanguinity' which indicated they
were of the same family, velvet found around one of the skeletal arm
remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that rules Roman children out.
You may recall that Charles II had no doubt about the identity of the
bones, that's why they went straight Westminster Abbey. The Dean wishes
to respect the Queen's wishes to not disturb the remains of ancestors
(who are waiting for the resurrection.) There have been sufficient
postings on this website: regarding Edward II, Clarence, to indicate
that there could be a factory conveyor belt of autopsies once the dam is
breached.
>
> The following is the position as it stands:
>
> `Skeletons which are presumed to be those of the Princes in the Tower
were discovered in 1674, when workmen employed in demolishing a
staircase within the Tower of London, leading to the chapel of the White
Tower, made the discovery of the bones of two children in an elm chest,
at around a depth of ten feet. They were originally thrown aside with
some rubble until their significance as the possible bones of the two
princes was recognized. Charles II, then the reigning monarch, asked the
architect Sir Christopher Wren to design a white marble container and
they were reverently placed in the Henry VII chapel at Westminster
Abbey, close to the tomb of the Prince's sister, Elizabeth of York.
>
> These bones were subject to a medical examination in 1933, which was
conducted by Lawrence Tanner, the Abbey archivist, Professor William
Wright, one of the leading anatomists of his day, and George Northcroft,
then president of the Dental Association. Tanner and Wright concluded
that they believed these were the bones of two children, the eldest aged
twelve to thirteen and the younger nine to eleven, they further stated
that a blood stain on the elder skull was consistent with death by
suffocation, and that congenital missing teeth and certain bilateral
Wormian bones of unusual size on both crania were evidence of
consanguinity. The lower jaw of the elder child exhibited extensive
evidence of the bone disease, osteomyelitis.
> The Tanner and Wright report has been subject to expert scrutiny on
many occasions since then. Modern conclusions vary. There is consensus
of opinion among modern experts that Wright's determination of the ages
of the skeletons and the age differential between the two sets of bones
is approximately correct, although great differences of age calculated
by the development of bones and teeth has been observed in studies.
Later reports claim to be unable to determine the sex of either
skeleton. Determination of consanguinity by congenitally missing teeth
or bilateral Wormian bones remains disputed. As regards the staining
which is present on one of the skulls, it is unproven that it is
actually a blood stain and modern experts deny it being proof of
suffocation. In the absence of modern carbon dating or DNA analysis on
the forensic evidence of the bones, it is still not possible to say that
these are the bones of Edward V and his brother. The Abbey authorities
have to date refused a second examination.'
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
pneville49@ wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Bill when he says..."In the case of the Westminster
bones, my concern is that opening the urn will make it impossible to
stop people from disturbing other remains for whatever reason. As was
mentioned earlier, there is no end to the controversies surrounding the
British monarchy; for example, who is buried in Edward II's tomb at
Gloucester?"... but in the case of Richard III there are charges of
murder laid against him, an utterly unproven distortion and depravity of
character, a further charge of usurption of the throne, and everything
else that the Tudors could throw at him. Obviously discovering that the
Westminster bones did or didn`t belong to the princes may not prove or
disprove his guilt or innocence, but I think he is owed justice in any
way possible. And the princes themselves are owed the same. Modern
forensics may help to bring that justice just a little closer.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree about you about the new-found concern with cultural
objects, but
> > > I think the one main difference between the examples you've cited
and
> > > the bones at Westminster is whether or not it is the culture who
> > > produces the objects which is actually removing the objects from
their
> > > original settings. In other words, who has stewardship over the
objects?
> > > In the case of the Westminster bones, it is those of us who share
an
> > > English background, of which the queen is one, who are the
cultural
> > > stewards.
> > >
> > > In the case of the Westminster bones, my concern is that opening
the urn
> > > will make it impossible to stop people from disturbing other
remains for
> > > whatever reason. As was mentioned earlier, there is no end to the
> > > controversies surrounding the British monarchy; for example, who
is
> > > buried in Edward II's tomb at Gloucester?
> > >
> > > On 07/12/2010 5:36 PM, fayre rose wrote:
> > > >
> > > > okay..howabout religious/cultural belief as the next likely
excuse?
> > > > currently, people around the globe are demanding the
repatriation of
> > > > artifacts and relicts from their home country/territory.
> > > >
> > > > in canada it makes the news every few months that ancestors and
> > > > ancestral items are being returned to the first immigrants..more
> > > > popularily known as first nations people. i've read that some
middle
> > > > eastern countries are negotiating and demanding the return of
items of
> > > > antiquity that where taken from the time of the crusades to
napoleon
> > > > to present day.
> > > >
> > > > "everyone" seems to be jumping on this politically correct
bandwagon.
> > > > it could be a while before this current fad runs its course.
kind of
> > > > makes you think of the suppression of knowledge imposed by the
vatican
> > > > for centuries.
> > > >
> > > > personally, i see nothing wrong with doing dna testing, but i'm
not an
> > > > 80 plus year old queen.
> > > >
> > > > roslyn
> > > >
> > > > --- On Tue, 12/7/10, pneville49 <pneville49@
> > > > <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co..uk>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: pneville49 <pneville49@
> > > > <mailto:pneville49%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> > > > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > > > To:
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Received: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:05 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Archaeologists frequently dig up and examine bones,including
those of
> > > > royalty. The allleged bones of Arsinoe (Cleopatra`s sister)
comes to
> > > > mind. I can`t see much difference between examining 500 year old
> > > > bones, than examination of bones a few thousand years old.
However it
> > > > begs the question...would the princes (or whomever) themselves
wish to
> > > > be identified?
> > > > It`s not even established that the bones are royalty, so how can
the
> > > > Queen claim them as being those of her ancestors without
furnishing
> > > > proof positive? This ancestry stance is ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Neville.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Angie
Telepenko
> > > > <gooble@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe she feels it is disrespectful to the dead, especially if
they
> > > > do turn out to be her long-lost "uncles." Perhaps she's afraid
it
> > > > would set a precedent - what if someone wants to dig her up in
500
> > > > years and poke around in her bones? I am aware there have been
other
> > > > examinations of royal remains over the years, but I'm pretty
sure
> > > > there have been none in recent memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, I don't think she's likely to change her mind but I
can see
> > > > Charles being a bit more amenable to the suggestion as he's
quite
> > > > interested in both history and scientific matters. I don't know
if it
> > > > would conclusively prove those bones ARE the princes, but it
could
> > > > possibly prove they AREN'T, and that would be more than we know
now.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Richard <RSG_Corris@>
> > > > > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:43 am
> > > > > Subject: Re: Mystery of Edward V
> > > > > To:
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't the Queen's cousin Richard Duke of Gloucester
interested
> > > > > > in the Richard III Society ? If so, he would be the obvious
> > > > > > person to ask the Queen for permission to extract DNA from
the
> > > > > > bones. However, if she is opposed to the idea, then neither
her
> > > > > > cousin nor her grandson are likely to change her mind. Ergo
we
> > > > > > will just have to wait for a change of monarch and a
possible
> > > > > > change of attitude.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "oregon_katy"
> > > > > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe if William Windsor became interested in the Richard
III
> > > > > > Society....>
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > No virus found in this message.
> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> > > > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3302 - Release Date:
12/07/10
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From correspondence with a doctor who should be in the know, my understanding is that the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks the Tanner and Wright investigation was sufficient to conclude the bones were those of Edward V: it was found that they were bones of children of the right ages, there was a dental congruence `consanguinity' which indicated they were of the same family, velvet found around one of the skeletal arm remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that rules Roman children out.


It has been suggested that the Tanner and Wright investigation started with the conclusion that the bones were those of the "princes" and worked backward, selecting corroborating evidence and disregarding contradictory bits. They found what they expected to find. There may be remains of more than two individuals, for example. They seized upon the severely diseased jaw of one skull and felt that tied it to Edward V, though no contemporary accounts said anything about such a condition, which would have been visible.

A wooden box and scraps of velvet have been mentioned, but that does not rule out the possibility that the skeletons are from an earlier era. My particular hobby horse is that the bones have been dug up more than once. They could have been pre-Roman foundation sacrifices made to protect the vulnerable corner of the fortress that existed on that site since farther back than history goes. The Romans built Londinium on the foundations of an earlier construction. Romans had a horror of human sacrifice, so if they found skeletons there, it isn't inconceivable that they would rebury them in situ. Similarly, William I's military architects started expanding and strengthening the fortification on top of the Roman fort -- the southeast corner of the White Tower aligns exactly with the massive old Roman wall -- and the bones could have been turned up (again) during the excavation for the massive footings of the White Tower. And, I surmise, put back as close as possible to where they had been found. What else to do with them, after all? Whoever the remains were, they would have been obviously pagan just on evidence of where they were found, and thus not suitable for burial in Christian ground. The bones could have been placed in a box and/or wrapped in fabric out of respect or superstition.

Katy

It is a shame that in the new supposedly academic biography of Richard David Hipshon mentions the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV very early on, and returns to them each time he brings up usurpation, which he does with the attempt by Richard's father to depose the incompetent Henry VI, and the taking of the crown by Edward IV. There are also back references to Henry IV usurping Richard II. Each and every mention gets a comment about how Richard's usurpation in 1483 was illegal, and one about the boys. And I haven't reached page 100 yet!
No guessing where Mr Hipshon is going when we get to 1483 itself in his narrative! Very disappointing.
Paul

________________________________
From: Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 12:26:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Mystery of Edward V

 
Another example involving controversy over human remains concerns whose
bones are being represented as the bones of Clarence and Isabel at
Tewksbury. I saw the bones in 1975, and was assured they were the real
McCoy. Now people aren't so sure.