The sentimentality about Edward V
The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-09 15:23:48
There's a natural feeling about protection regarding a 12 year old and his 9 year old brother, but from Buckingham's view (my favourite as a murder suspect) or that of others who had deposed him, wouldn't this have been like the story of the hen who sat on snake eggs only to have them kill her when they grew? If Richard, Buckingham or Henry VII had left them alive surely they would've been in mortal danger from them? What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-09 18:41:56
All of those you mention were shown to be dead (although even then there is a suggestion that Edward II lived on a few years). The extraordinary thing about the Princes is that no-one ever produced their remains, not even Tydder when he had Tyrell blamed for their deaths. The same thing applies to the disappearance of Arthur of Brittany, but for some reason his story did not catch the popular mood in the same way the Princes did; perhaps because no-one had much doubt of who was responsible.
This suggests that if Edward IV's sons did die in the Tower, those who knew the details did not live long enough to publish the information (which could finger Buckingham), or that they were secretly removed and those who knew their whereabouts died at Bosworth (Norfolk, Richard). If indeed Buckingham (or Richard) ordered them killed in 1483, then it would have been in Tydder's interest to exhume them, give them a royal burial, and blame Richard.
If Tydder ordered them killed in 1485, by the time Tyrell had been blamed enough years had passed for Tydder to exhume them and still finger Richard. Indeed it would have been in his interests to produce two skeletons of the right age and claim they were the princes (as the monks of Glastonbury once did for King Arthur). The fact that he did not do so suggests that he may not have known what happened to them.
Of course there is the other option, shown in the TV programme a few years ago, that they were kept alive in the Tower in appalling conditions for much of Tydder's reign at the behest of his mother.
Richard G
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was
> executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward
> II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old
> lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
>
This suggests that if Edward IV's sons did die in the Tower, those who knew the details did not live long enough to publish the information (which could finger Buckingham), or that they were secretly removed and those who knew their whereabouts died at Bosworth (Norfolk, Richard). If indeed Buckingham (or Richard) ordered them killed in 1483, then it would have been in Tydder's interest to exhume them, give them a royal burial, and blame Richard.
If Tydder ordered them killed in 1485, by the time Tyrell had been blamed enough years had passed for Tydder to exhume them and still finger Richard. Indeed it would have been in his interests to produce two skeletons of the right age and claim they were the princes (as the monks of Glastonbury once did for King Arthur). The fact that he did not do so suggests that he may not have known what happened to them.
Of course there is the other option, shown in the TV programme a few years ago, that they were kept alive in the Tower in appalling conditions for much of Tydder's reign at the behest of his mother.
Richard G
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was
> executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward
> II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old
> lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-09 23:12:32
"vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> There's a natural feeling about protection regarding a 12 year old and his 9 year old brother, but from Buckingham's view (my favourite as a murder suspect) or that of others who had deposed him, wouldn't this have been like the story of the hen who sat on snake eggs only to have them kill her when they grew? If Richard, Buckingham or Henry VII had left them alive surely they would've been in mortal danger from them? What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
>
Carol notes:
Just a small point in addition to what Stephen Lark said: Richard Grey was never a claimant to the throne. He was not a Yorkist (or Lancastrian) but a Woodville and was executed for his part in a plot to thwart Richard's appointment as protector.
Interestingly, Henry IV did *not* kill the Mortimers, whose claim was better than his in the same way that the Yorkist claim was better than the Lancastrian, and Richard III did not kill his other nephew, Edward of Warwick (whose claim, if the attainder were reversed, would be better than his).
Richard was not his distant ancestor, King John. I don't think we can safely second-guess him. In any case, as Stephen Lark says, there is no evidence that they were murdered other than the bones, which may or may not belong to Edward and Richard, and even if they're proven to be the right bones, the age at death is not as easy to prove as the original examiners seemed to think given the variation in size and maturity of children of the same age (look at any middle school classroom), nor would the cause of death necessarily be ascertainable (or the identity of the murderer if they were, in fact, murdered). We can't assume that just because other kings murdered the adult kings they deposed that Richard would *necessarily* have murdered his child nephews (one of whom he knew reasonably well). He could have made other arrangements.
And, given his one Parliament, he could have ruled so well that no one would want to overthrow him (except a few rebels who had lost their positions for rebelling and the few discontented nobles who betrayed him at Bosworth). He may well have thought that the Earl of Oxford, the one general that his enemies could count on to oppose him, was securely locked up (he would have been if not for James Blount) and that he (Richard) had no other enemies who posed a threat in terms of rebellion with the ungrateful Buckingham out of the picture. The threat that someone would try to "rescue" the boys and use them against him (or kill them) was real enough, but that threat could be averted by sending them away in the custody of Tyrrell or Brampton.
Carol, noting that we have no evidence that would hold up in court that a murder even occurred
>
> There's a natural feeling about protection regarding a 12 year old and his 9 year old brother, but from Buckingham's view (my favourite as a murder suspect) or that of others who had deposed him, wouldn't this have been like the story of the hen who sat on snake eggs only to have them kill her when they grew? If Richard, Buckingham or Henry VII had left them alive surely they would've been in mortal danger from them? What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
>
Carol notes:
Just a small point in addition to what Stephen Lark said: Richard Grey was never a claimant to the throne. He was not a Yorkist (or Lancastrian) but a Woodville and was executed for his part in a plot to thwart Richard's appointment as protector.
Interestingly, Henry IV did *not* kill the Mortimers, whose claim was better than his in the same way that the Yorkist claim was better than the Lancastrian, and Richard III did not kill his other nephew, Edward of Warwick (whose claim, if the attainder were reversed, would be better than his).
Richard was not his distant ancestor, King John. I don't think we can safely second-guess him. In any case, as Stephen Lark says, there is no evidence that they were murdered other than the bones, which may or may not belong to Edward and Richard, and even if they're proven to be the right bones, the age at death is not as easy to prove as the original examiners seemed to think given the variation in size and maturity of children of the same age (look at any middle school classroom), nor would the cause of death necessarily be ascertainable (or the identity of the murderer if they were, in fact, murdered). We can't assume that just because other kings murdered the adult kings they deposed that Richard would *necessarily* have murdered his child nephews (one of whom he knew reasonably well). He could have made other arrangements.
And, given his one Parliament, he could have ruled so well that no one would want to overthrow him (except a few rebels who had lost their positions for rebelling and the few discontented nobles who betrayed him at Bosworth). He may well have thought that the Earl of Oxford, the one general that his enemies could count on to oppose him, was securely locked up (he would have been if not for James Blount) and that he (Richard) had no other enemies who posed a threat in terms of rebellion with the ungrateful Buckingham out of the picture. The threat that someone would try to "rescue" the boys and use them against him (or kill them) was real enough, but that threat could be averted by sending them away in the custody of Tyrrell or Brampton.
Carol, noting that we have no evidence that would hold up in court that a murder even occurred
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-11 14:41:47
I agree that no-one will ever prove what happened to the princes: murderers don't usually confess their crimes or being sure what ever happened to them is problematic. This is real life, not a pre-scripted Agatha Christie murder mystery. There was a trial of Richard III - David Starkey a prosecuting witness – and Richard was found `Not Guilty' for lack of evidence.
Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
Incidentally, the More account stated that the princes were buried at the stair foot; it's possible that some flagstones were removed, earth removed and the coffin slotted in, which was found in 1674. However, why More is vague about the exact location suggests that his information was faulty.
We are stuck with the fact that most Contemporary accounts of the disappearance of the 'Princes in the Tower' suggested their deaths.
Dominic Mancini, who left England in July, 1483, informs us;-
'He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether. A Strasbourg doctor, the last of his attendants, whose services the King enjoyed, reported that the young King, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him. Already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether however, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.'
The Croyland Chronicle, written in the spring of 1486, confirms these rumours:-
'A rumour,' it states 'was spread that the sons of King Edward had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how'.
Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol made an entry in his 'Kalendar' for the year ending September, 1483:-
'In this year the two sons of King Edward were put to silence in the Tower of London.'
Historical notes compiled by a citizen of London before the end of 1488 for the year ending November, 1483, record that:-
'they were put to death in the Tower of London.'
Buckingham with his treachery to the Woodvilles; he was married to one of them, then to Richard III with whom he'd acted as `Kingmaker,' given his viable claim to the crown, I suspect of conniving in the deaths or bumping off the princes leaving Richard with the ignominy with which he could only remain silent.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
>
> > There's a natural feeling about protection regarding a 12 year old and his 9 year old brother, but from Buckingham's view (my favourite as a murder suspect) or that of others who had deposed him, wouldn't this have been like the story of the hen who sat on snake eggs only to have them kill her when they grew? If Richard, Buckingham or Henry VII had left them alive surely they would've been in mortal danger from them? What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
> >
> Carol notes:
>
> Just a small point in addition to what Stephen Lark said: Richard Grey was never a claimant to the throne. He was not a Yorkist (or Lancastrian) but a Woodville and was executed for his part in a plot to thwart Richard's appointment as protector.
>
> Interestingly, Henry IV did *not* kill the Mortimers, whose claim was better than his in the same way that the Yorkist claim was better than the Lancastrian, and Richard III did not kill his other nephew, Edward of Warwick (whose claim, if the attainder were reversed, would be better than his).
>
> Richard was not his distant ancestor, King John. I don't think we can safely second-guess him. In any case, as Stephen Lark says, there is no evidence that they were murdered other than the bones, which may or may not belong to Edward and Richard, and even if they're proven to be the right bones, the age at death is not as easy to prove as the original examiners seemed to think given the variation in size and maturity of children of the same age (look at any middle school classroom), nor would the cause of death necessarily be ascertainable (or the identity of the murderer if they were, in fact, murdered). We can't assume that just because other kings murdered the adult kings they deposed that Richard would *necessarily* have murdered his child nephews (one of whom he knew reasonably well). He could have made other arrangements.
>
> And, given his one Parliament, he could have ruled so well that no one would want to overthrow him (except a few rebels who had lost their positions for rebelling and the few discontented nobles who betrayed him at Bosworth). He may well have thought that the Earl of Oxford, the one general that his enemies could count on to oppose him, was securely locked up (he would have been if not for James Blount) and that he (Richard) had no other enemies who posed a threat in terms of rebellion with the ungrateful Buckingham out of the picture. The threat that someone would try to "rescue" the boys and use them against him (or kill them) was real enough, but that threat could be averted by sending them away in the custody of Tyrrell or Brampton.
>
> Carol, noting that we have no evidence that would hold up in court that a murder even occurred
>
Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
Incidentally, the More account stated that the princes were buried at the stair foot; it's possible that some flagstones were removed, earth removed and the coffin slotted in, which was found in 1674. However, why More is vague about the exact location suggests that his information was faulty.
We are stuck with the fact that most Contemporary accounts of the disappearance of the 'Princes in the Tower' suggested their deaths.
Dominic Mancini, who left England in July, 1483, informs us;-
'He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether. A Strasbourg doctor, the last of his attendants, whose services the King enjoyed, reported that the young King, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him. Already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether however, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.'
The Croyland Chronicle, written in the spring of 1486, confirms these rumours:-
'A rumour,' it states 'was spread that the sons of King Edward had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how'.
Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol made an entry in his 'Kalendar' for the year ending September, 1483:-
'In this year the two sons of King Edward were put to silence in the Tower of London.'
Historical notes compiled by a citizen of London before the end of 1488 for the year ending November, 1483, record that:-
'they were put to death in the Tower of London.'
Buckingham with his treachery to the Woodvilles; he was married to one of them, then to Richard III with whom he'd acted as `Kingmaker,' given his viable claim to the crown, I suspect of conniving in the deaths or bumping off the princes leaving Richard with the ignominy with which he could only remain silent.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
>
> > There's a natural feeling about protection regarding a 12 year old and his 9 year old brother, but from Buckingham's view (my favourite as a murder suspect) or that of others who had deposed him, wouldn't this have been like the story of the hen who sat on snake eggs only to have them kill her when they grew? If Richard, Buckingham or Henry VII had left them alive surely they would've been in mortal danger from them? What happened to Richard Grey: Edward V's half-brother? He was executed by order of Richard and Buckingham. What happened to Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI when they were deposed? Like the old lady who swallowed a horse, they died (were killed) of course!
> >
> Carol notes:
>
> Just a small point in addition to what Stephen Lark said: Richard Grey was never a claimant to the throne. He was not a Yorkist (or Lancastrian) but a Woodville and was executed for his part in a plot to thwart Richard's appointment as protector.
>
> Interestingly, Henry IV did *not* kill the Mortimers, whose claim was better than his in the same way that the Yorkist claim was better than the Lancastrian, and Richard III did not kill his other nephew, Edward of Warwick (whose claim, if the attainder were reversed, would be better than his).
>
> Richard was not his distant ancestor, King John. I don't think we can safely second-guess him. In any case, as Stephen Lark says, there is no evidence that they were murdered other than the bones, which may or may not belong to Edward and Richard, and even if they're proven to be the right bones, the age at death is not as easy to prove as the original examiners seemed to think given the variation in size and maturity of children of the same age (look at any middle school classroom), nor would the cause of death necessarily be ascertainable (or the identity of the murderer if they were, in fact, murdered). We can't assume that just because other kings murdered the adult kings they deposed that Richard would *necessarily* have murdered his child nephews (one of whom he knew reasonably well). He could have made other arrangements.
>
> And, given his one Parliament, he could have ruled so well that no one would want to overthrow him (except a few rebels who had lost their positions for rebelling and the few discontented nobles who betrayed him at Bosworth). He may well have thought that the Earl of Oxford, the one general that his enemies could count on to oppose him, was securely locked up (he would have been if not for James Blount) and that he (Richard) had no other enemies who posed a threat in terms of rebellion with the ungrateful Buckingham out of the picture. The threat that someone would try to "rescue" the boys and use them against him (or kill them) was real enough, but that threat could be averted by sending them away in the custody of Tyrrell or Brampton.
>
> Carol, noting that we have no evidence that would hold up in court that a murder even occurred
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-11 15:21:04
Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-13 15:09:14
The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 – she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> Paul
>
> On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> Paul
>
> On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-14 05:20:51
hi vermeertwo
what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
To:
Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> Paul
>
> On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
>
what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
To:
Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> Paul
>
> On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-14 15:14:04
Richard Grey would've been part of the educational process for Edward V (to be.) As his half-brother, he would've been an intimate of Edward's, so no wonder Edward V was upset when Grey was arrested.
Richard III to be was damned if he didn't arrest them and damned if he did.
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> hi vermeertwo
> what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
> Â
> richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
> Â
> roslyn
> Â
> --- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
> To:
> Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 â€" she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III to be was damned if he didn't arrest them and damned if he did.
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> hi vermeertwo
> what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
> Â
> richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
> Â
> roslyn
> Â
> --- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
> To:
> Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 â€" she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-14 16:32:27
The following is the stock view of Grey; education was the responsibility of Rivers and so Grey was probably assisting and learning as he went along: according to the following, he was only 23 when executed.
`Sir Richard Grey (1460? – 25 June 1483) was an English knight and the half-brother of King Edward V of England.
Grey was the younger son of Sir John Grey of Groby and Elizabeth Woodville, later Queen Consort of King Edward IV. A young child when his mother married Edward IV, Richard first appeared on the public scene when he took part in the jousts to celebrate the creation of his half-brother Richard as duke of York in 1474, a feat he repeated at the duke's marriage celebrations in 1478. Richard Grey was knighted in 1475 and was nominated four times to membership of The Most Noble Order of the Garter between 1476 and 1482. His political role also started in 1475, the year he was knighted, when he began to serve in Wales and the bordering counties as part of the political rule of the council of his other half-brother, Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward V). Grey served as a Justice of the Peace in Herefordshire from 1475 and sat at sessions of the peace in Hereford and Ludlow in 1476 and 1477. In 1479 he was appointed constable of Chester castle and in the same year was considered important enough for the city of Bristol to appeal to him for his aid. He served on a number of other judicial commissions in the region through the remainder of the reign of his stepfather. In 1482 he was granted the Welsh lordship of Kidwelly, and in the same year was given a greater role in the upbringing of the Prince of Wales; by the end of the reign, Grey was becoming increasingly important in the king's rule in the region. He was also being given a broader geographic field of activity, serving as constable of Wallingford Castle from 1482 and the following year being granted the Holland manors in Essex and Northamptonshire.
After the death of Edward IV, while accompanying the new king Edward V to London from Wales with their uncle Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, he was arrested by Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) on 30 April 1483 at Stony Stratford and, with Rivers, imprisoned in the north of England. Within a few weeks Grey's lands and offices had been redistributed to others, although he had not been legally deprived of them. After Gloucester's accession to the throne Grey and his uncle were executed at Pontefract Castle on 25 June 1483.'
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Richard Grey would've been part of the educational process for Edward V (to be.) As his half-brother, he would've been an intimate of Edward's, so no wonder Edward V was upset when Grey was arrested.
>
> Richard III to be was damned if he didn't arrest them and damned if he did.
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > hi vermeertwo
> > what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
> > Â
> > richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
> > Â
> > roslyn
> > Â
> > --- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> > Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 â€" she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
`Sir Richard Grey (1460? – 25 June 1483) was an English knight and the half-brother of King Edward V of England.
Grey was the younger son of Sir John Grey of Groby and Elizabeth Woodville, later Queen Consort of King Edward IV. A young child when his mother married Edward IV, Richard first appeared on the public scene when he took part in the jousts to celebrate the creation of his half-brother Richard as duke of York in 1474, a feat he repeated at the duke's marriage celebrations in 1478. Richard Grey was knighted in 1475 and was nominated four times to membership of The Most Noble Order of the Garter between 1476 and 1482. His political role also started in 1475, the year he was knighted, when he began to serve in Wales and the bordering counties as part of the political rule of the council of his other half-brother, Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward V). Grey served as a Justice of the Peace in Herefordshire from 1475 and sat at sessions of the peace in Hereford and Ludlow in 1476 and 1477. In 1479 he was appointed constable of Chester castle and in the same year was considered important enough for the city of Bristol to appeal to him for his aid. He served on a number of other judicial commissions in the region through the remainder of the reign of his stepfather. In 1482 he was granted the Welsh lordship of Kidwelly, and in the same year was given a greater role in the upbringing of the Prince of Wales; by the end of the reign, Grey was becoming increasingly important in the king's rule in the region. He was also being given a broader geographic field of activity, serving as constable of Wallingford Castle from 1482 and the following year being granted the Holland manors in Essex and Northamptonshire.
After the death of Edward IV, while accompanying the new king Edward V to London from Wales with their uncle Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, he was arrested by Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) on 30 April 1483 at Stony Stratford and, with Rivers, imprisoned in the north of England. Within a few weeks Grey's lands and offices had been redistributed to others, although he had not been legally deprived of them. After Gloucester's accession to the throne Grey and his uncle were executed at Pontefract Castle on 25 June 1483.'
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Richard Grey would've been part of the educational process for Edward V (to be.) As his half-brother, he would've been an intimate of Edward's, so no wonder Edward V was upset when Grey was arrested.
>
> Richard III to be was damned if he didn't arrest them and damned if he did.
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > hi vermeertwo
> > what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
> > Â
> > richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
> > Â
> > roslyn
> > Â
> > --- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> > Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 â€" she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-14 16:34:56
As you asked for a source, the following should do:
Horrox, Rosemary (2004), "Grey, Sir Richard (d. 1483)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11547, retrieved 30 August 2010
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> The following is the stock view of Grey; education was the responsibility of Rivers and so Grey was probably assisting and learning as he went along: according to the following, he was only 23 when executed.
>
> `Sir Richard Grey (1460? – 25 June 1483) was an English knight and the half-brother of King Edward V of England.
> Grey was the younger son of Sir John Grey of Groby and Elizabeth Woodville, later Queen Consort of King Edward IV. A young child when his mother married Edward IV, Richard first appeared on the public scene when he took part in the jousts to celebrate the creation of his half-brother Richard as duke of York in 1474, a feat he repeated at the duke's marriage celebrations in 1478. Richard Grey was knighted in 1475 and was nominated four times to membership of The Most Noble Order of the Garter between 1476 and 1482. His political role also started in 1475, the year he was knighted, when he began to serve in Wales and the bordering counties as part of the political rule of the council of his other half-brother, Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward V). Grey served as a Justice of the Peace in Herefordshire from 1475 and sat at sessions of the peace in Hereford and Ludlow in 1476 and 1477. In 1479 he was appointed constable of Chester castle and in the same year was considered important enough for the city of Bristol to appeal to him for his aid. He served on a number of other judicial commissions in the region through the remainder of the reign of his stepfather. In 1482 he was granted the Welsh lordship of Kidwelly, and in the same year was given a greater role in the upbringing of the Prince of Wales; by the end of the reign, Grey was becoming increasingly important in the king's rule in the region. He was also being given a broader geographic field of activity, serving as constable of Wallingford Castle from 1482 and the following year being granted the Holland manors in Essex and Northamptonshire.
>
> After the death of Edward IV, while accompanying the new king Edward V to London from Wales with their uncle Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, he was arrested by Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) on 30 April 1483 at Stony Stratford and, with Rivers, imprisoned in the north of England. Within a few weeks Grey's lands and offices had been redistributed to others, although he had not been legally deprived of them. After Gloucester's accession to the throne Grey and his uncle were executed at Pontefract Castle on 25 June 1483.'
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Grey would've been part of the educational process for Edward V (to be.) As his half-brother, he would've been an intimate of Edward's, so no wonder Edward V was upset when Grey was arrested.
> >
> > Richard III to be was damned if he didn't arrest them and damned if he did.
> >
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > hi vermeertwo
> > > what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
> > > Â
> > > richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
> > > Â
> > > roslyn
> > > Â
> > > --- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> > > Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
> > > To:
> > > Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 â€" she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Horrox, Rosemary (2004), "Grey, Sir Richard (d. 1483)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11547, retrieved 30 August 2010
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> The following is the stock view of Grey; education was the responsibility of Rivers and so Grey was probably assisting and learning as he went along: according to the following, he was only 23 when executed.
>
> `Sir Richard Grey (1460? – 25 June 1483) was an English knight and the half-brother of King Edward V of England.
> Grey was the younger son of Sir John Grey of Groby and Elizabeth Woodville, later Queen Consort of King Edward IV. A young child when his mother married Edward IV, Richard first appeared on the public scene when he took part in the jousts to celebrate the creation of his half-brother Richard as duke of York in 1474, a feat he repeated at the duke's marriage celebrations in 1478. Richard Grey was knighted in 1475 and was nominated four times to membership of The Most Noble Order of the Garter between 1476 and 1482. His political role also started in 1475, the year he was knighted, when he began to serve in Wales and the bordering counties as part of the political rule of the council of his other half-brother, Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward V). Grey served as a Justice of the Peace in Herefordshire from 1475 and sat at sessions of the peace in Hereford and Ludlow in 1476 and 1477. In 1479 he was appointed constable of Chester castle and in the same year was considered important enough for the city of Bristol to appeal to him for his aid. He served on a number of other judicial commissions in the region through the remainder of the reign of his stepfather. In 1482 he was granted the Welsh lordship of Kidwelly, and in the same year was given a greater role in the upbringing of the Prince of Wales; by the end of the reign, Grey was becoming increasingly important in the king's rule in the region. He was also being given a broader geographic field of activity, serving as constable of Wallingford Castle from 1482 and the following year being granted the Holland manors in Essex and Northamptonshire.
>
> After the death of Edward IV, while accompanying the new king Edward V to London from Wales with their uncle Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, he was arrested by Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) on 30 April 1483 at Stony Stratford and, with Rivers, imprisoned in the north of England. Within a few weeks Grey's lands and offices had been redistributed to others, although he had not been legally deprived of them. After Gloucester's accession to the throne Grey and his uncle were executed at Pontefract Castle on 25 June 1483.'
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Grey would've been part of the educational process for Edward V (to be.) As his half-brother, he would've been an intimate of Edward's, so no wonder Edward V was upset when Grey was arrested.
> >
> > Richard III to be was damned if he didn't arrest them and damned if he did.
> >
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > hi vermeertwo
> > > what is your source for richard de grey, son of e.w. being educated with e5? woodville's de grey sons were born circa 1455, possibly as early as 1452 or as late as 1459. this would make richard anywhere from 11 to 18 years older than e5.
> > > Â
> > > richard and e5 did both live at ludlow, but i don't think they were educated together. uncle anthony may have mentored both of them. richard de grey would have been an adult aged between 24 and 30 years old in 1483. he may have been one of e5's tutors or mentors too.
> > > Â
> > > roslyn
> > > Â
> > > --- On Mon, 12/13/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> > > Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
> > > To:
> > > Received: Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that Edward V and Richard Grey shared Elizabeth Woodville as their mother and the fact that Edward and Richard were educated together in Ludlow meant an obvious bias from Edward for Grey: Elizabeth Woodville was no friend of Richard's, probably before 1483 â€" she had no reason to prefer him over her own family - and certainly after the execution of her brother Rivers and son Grey. Edward V's attitude to Richard III would've been toxic after his illegitimatisation and what was done to his immediate family and friends.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let's not forget that Richard was Constable of England, as well as Protector, and between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable was the law in England, with all the powers of the monarch. Acting against him was treason, and those who did deserved the punishment they received.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:41, vermeertwo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Richard Grey was trying to undermine Richard Gloucester as protector. Richard Gloucester was damned if he acted against him and damned if he didn't and for that reason he should have sympathy. But of course Grey was acting on behalf of Edward V: his half-brother and it was recorded that Edward was less than happy about the arrest of Grey with whom he'd been brought up in Ludlow. It's possible if Richard felt that Grey, Rivers and that bunch were a threat to him, that Edward V, who was in their pocket, would also be.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-15 00:41:18
Sorry I'm a bit late with this again. These are a few observations on posts by "Vermeertwo".
** "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 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." **
I don't know your source, but the claim that all modern authorities have backed up Tanner and Wright's view on the ages of the children is misleading – see below.
*" "velvet found around one of the skeletal arm remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that
rules Roman children out." **
There was NO velvet found by Tanner and Wright, viz:
"It was found that the bones filled an oblong cavity within the urn. It was at once apparent that they belonged to two human beings, for a fairly complete skull and a portion of another lay upon the top. Many bones were found to be missing but this is accounted for by the fact, as stated in Sandford, that the bones at first were thrown away by the workmen and had subsequently to be recovered from a heap of rubbish. Among the dust at the bottom of the urn we found three much rusted nails, which may possibly have belonged to the original chest in which the bones were buried. No portion of rag, velvet or any other material was found." (Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower, Tanner and Wright, 1935, pp. 14-15)
The story about the velvet comes from a marginal note reputedly found by Richard Davey in 1910 in a heraldry manuscript he had inherited:-
"This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men dig out of a stairway in the White Tower the bones of those two princes who were foully murdered by Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in their teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about them. Being fully recognised to be the bones of those two princes, they were carefully put aside in a stone coffin or coffer."
Tanner tried to trace this manuscript but could not find it. No one else has ever seen it. It's authenticity has also been question because of the inclusion of the word `teens', but in fact this term did make its first entry into the English language during the reign of Charles II. But no other contemporary source mentions either velvet nor any other material, nor storage in a stone coffin.
Incidentally, another possible reason for the inclusion of animal bones – particularly given the very incomplete nature of the sets of human bones present – is that before reinterment in the urn some bones had been made off with as souvenirs and replaced by animal bones of approximately the right size and shape. When Henry VI's remains were examined they too were found to be incomplete and to have been made up with animal bones, and it is thought that this was due to theft of bones as holy relics during the period of his exhumation and reinterment at Windsor in 1484.
.
** "You may recall that Charles II had no doubt about the identity of the bones, that's why they went straight Westminster Abbey." **
Worth remembering that it was still useful for the monarchy to be able to lay to rest any surmise that either of the Princes might have survived to father offspring. There had allegedly been other bones found in the Tower since the end of the Tudor period, and all of them had been excitedly ascribed to the Princes. It is what one would expect.
** "The Dean wishes to respect the Queen's wishes to not disturb the remains of ancestors (who are waiting for the resurrection.)" **
I can understand the Queen's feelings. She was a child when Tanner and Wright's investigation took place, which appeared to confirm that these were indeed the bones of murdered royal children. The whole thing probably made a great emotional impression on her as a royal child, and she seems to remain fairly convinced that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother, and therefore that allowing further examination would set a precedent. I do not agree. Those who would like to see these bones examined do so only because they have a similarly strong feeling that these remains have nothing to do with the Princes, or indeed anyone on Queen Elizabeth's family tree, and are probably a couple of thousand years old and not therefore Christian.
** 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." **
Firstly, "skeletons" is too great a claim to make for these remains. They were found, when the urn was examined, to consist of two partial human skulls (one more complete than the other), various bits of rib, scapulae and vertebrae, and assorted leg and arm bones, plus "a large variety of other bones such as those of fish, duck, chicken, rabbit, sheep, pig, and ox." (Tanner & Wright, p. 20)
As for an elm chest, this appears to be a flight of fancy of T&W as I can't find a reference to elm among any of the contemporary descriptions of the find – or is it from More, anyone know? T&W refer in their article to the bones having been found in an elm chest, but Sandford and Knight, our contemporary sources, state only that the bones were found "in (as it seemed) a wooden chest", which Sandford claimed was broken by the workmen in the digging. But since the workmen were initially able to discard the bones on to the rubbish tip, it seems clear that none of the gentlemen whose accounts we have actually saw the bones being unearthed. If there was a chest, or whether pieces of wood pulled out from the same tip were merely surmised by the "gentlemen" to have belonged to a burial chest, is not clear. A "peat-stained piece of wood" and a few nails were found in the urn but were not, according to a lecture I attended a couple of years ago by the late lamented Bill White, either examined or retained by T & W. Perhaps someone can tell us whether 15th century chests were generally held together with nails or not.
** "They were originally thrown aside with some rubble until their significance as the
possible bones of the two princes was recognized." **
Tanner and Wright confused the rubbish referred to in Sandford's account with the rubble (ruderibus) referred to in the inscription on the urn. In English, the inscription reads:-
"Found, by the most certain signs, on 17 July 1674 deeply buried in the rubble of the stair (that stair which recently led to the chapel in the White Tower).
As Helen Maurer has more recently pointed out, this is not a reference to the rubbish tip, but to the bones' having been found in or under the layer of rubble which was used to underpin the foundations. This indicates – as indeed the text specifically states – that they were buried at considerable depth, and this is corroborated by Sandford's account, according to which the bones were found at a depth of 10 feet.
For me, this in itself rules out a 15th century origin for these children. These bones were not (as you have suggested they may have been) slipped in under a flagstone, but lay buried many many feet down beneath the foundations of structures that dated from the 14th century. In any case, any modern archaeologist coming across a find would date it first and foremost by the depth at which it was discovered. I ask what a modern archaeologist would say about bones found 10 ft below the ground level of the late 17th century. Personally, I would suggest that these bones, like the skeleton discovered in the Tower grounds in the 1970s, probably date from the Iron Age.
** 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," **
These ages have been disputed – see below.
** "they further stated that a blood stain on the elder skull was consistent with death by suffocation," **
To quote from T&W's own report again: "A remarkable feature of Edward's [sic] facial skeleton was an extensive stain reaching from just below the orbits to the angles of the lower jaw. The stain was of a distinctly blood-red colour above, of a dirty brown colour below, and was obviously, as shown by the gradual fading away of its margins, of fluid origin. I have no doubt it was a blood stain. Its presence, together with the complete separation of the facial skeleton, lends support to the traditional account of the manner of the brothers' death – suffocated `under feather bed andpillows, kept down by force hard unto their mouths.'" (p. 18)
You see that T & W, having already identified the bones as belonging to the Princes, were LOOKING for evidence of smothering. No tests were carried out on this stain to see if it really was blood. It would actually be extremely odd for blood which had been exposed to the elements for so long to look red – blood turns brown on oxidation. An equally valid reason for the separation of the facial skeleton, given the depth of burial and broken and partial state of the remains in general, would surely be sheer post-mortem wear & tear.
Unfortunately we can't judge the colour of the stain for ourselves since there are no colour pics of the bones. In fact, none of the photos of the "Edward V" skull show any obvious stain, nor is it referred to in the captions.
Nor was this the only staining on this skull:-
"The left half of the interior of Edward's cranium was stained a dirty brown colour. ..." (p. 22).
** "... there was a dental congruence consanguinity' which indicated they were of the same family, **
The only DENTAL evidence in this direction remarked on by T&W is the lack of a root for one of the molars of the smaller skull, and lack of the upper second premolars in the larger skull.
** "and that congenital missing teeth" **
Ah! Now this appears to be a reference to the claims of Theya Molleson in 1987. She argued that the fact that the "Edward V" jaw had a couple of missing teeth, and that Anne Mowbray lacked six teeth, is strong evidence that the elder child whose bones are in the urn was related to Anne Mowbray. There are two problems with this theory, however. One is that it cannot be proved that, as Molleson claimed, the teeth in "Edward V's" skull were congenitally missing (hypodontia) rather than lost during life (Bill White made this point at this same lecture). The other awkward fact is that Anne Mowbray had very probably inherited the tendency from her mother's side, since the skull of her maternal grandfather John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, also shows hypodontia. But Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes only on her father's side.
* "and certain bilateral Wormian bones of unusual size on both crania were evidence of
consanguinity." *
Here we are talking about consanguinity between the two [sic] individuals in the urn rather than between them and Anne Mowbray – this is another of T &W's arguments which Molleson also argues for. Both the skulls in the urn had Wormian bones.
Wormian bones are extraneous bones usually lying over joints in the cranium. They are/ were more common amongst some populations than others. Uncommon now, I think, they were quite common in earlier periods, but according to Bill White more common in the ancient population than the medieval.
Molleson also went to some trouble to argue (rather tentatively) from the bones in the urn that they had characteristics suggesting they may have been male (to do with eruption of teeth, and comparison between maturity of dentition and the skeleton in general). What she also admitted, however, is the fact that hypodontia is almost twice as common amongst females as males. Bill White notes that Wormian bones are also more common in females.
What I have discovered myself from googling the subject is that Wormian bones are thought to be designed to strengthen a weak cranium, and are associated with various diseases such as brittle bone disease, rickets, Downs syndrome and others. I would suggest that the presence of fairly large Wormian bones in both the skulls in the urn, taken together with the apparent disease in the jaw of the elder child, suggests these children may have struggled with illness and died from natural causes (or, if they were sacrificial victims as has also been suggested, been chosen because of their poor physical state).
** "The lower jaw of the elder child exhibited extensive evidence of the bone disease, osteomyelitis." **
Some disease does seem to have been present in the jaw of the elder child, but the X-rays are not clear and other experts have suggested other diseases, or even the result of dental surgery. Certainly, if it was a serious disease as T&W claimed, then this surely cannot have been Edward V, who was never noted as ill or physically suffering and frequently travelled between Ludlow and London. If this child did have osteomyelitis, then sooner or later he/ she would have succumbed to septicaemia – my mother nursed many cases of osteomyelitis in wounded soldiers during World War II, and when I asked her how they got on she said – well, they all died.
** 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." **
Indeed. Both Bill White and Lyne-Perkis have calcluated the older child to have been too young to have been Edward V. But there is a still more serious problem according to Bill White; the age of the owner of the younger (at death) bones is consistent as between the dentition and the arm bones, but the leg bones are too long, and some other bones also look too advanced. This is the reason for most of the disagreement beetween experts as to the owner's age.
Tanner and Wright were confident that, because they had no more than two sets of anything, they had bones from just two individuals. Apparently modern archaeologists would be expected to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the minimum number of individuals. White suggests that the leg bones and axis that have been paired up with the smaller skull belong to a third individual – or even to two more individuals! – and this is something which could be confirmed or ruled out by a fresh examination. Although it is not in his paper, at the lecture he suggested that the 17th century workmen may possibly have come upon the remains of an ancient burial site.
** "Later reports claim to be unable to determine the sex of either skeleton." **
Too right they do! Not only are the bones those of pre-pubertal children, but there was no pelvic material in the urn at all. T&W didn't claim they could determine the sex – they based their identification of them on other criteria.
Marie
** "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 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." **
I don't know your source, but the claim that all modern authorities have backed up Tanner and Wright's view on the ages of the children is misleading – see below.
*" "velvet found around one of the skeletal arm remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that
rules Roman children out." **
There was NO velvet found by Tanner and Wright, viz:
"It was found that the bones filled an oblong cavity within the urn. It was at once apparent that they belonged to two human beings, for a fairly complete skull and a portion of another lay upon the top. Many bones were found to be missing but this is accounted for by the fact, as stated in Sandford, that the bones at first were thrown away by the workmen and had subsequently to be recovered from a heap of rubbish. Among the dust at the bottom of the urn we found three much rusted nails, which may possibly have belonged to the original chest in which the bones were buried. No portion of rag, velvet or any other material was found." (Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower, Tanner and Wright, 1935, pp. 14-15)
The story about the velvet comes from a marginal note reputedly found by Richard Davey in 1910 in a heraldry manuscript he had inherited:-
"This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men dig out of a stairway in the White Tower the bones of those two princes who were foully murdered by Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in their teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about them. Being fully recognised to be the bones of those two princes, they were carefully put aside in a stone coffin or coffer."
Tanner tried to trace this manuscript but could not find it. No one else has ever seen it. It's authenticity has also been question because of the inclusion of the word `teens', but in fact this term did make its first entry into the English language during the reign of Charles II. But no other contemporary source mentions either velvet nor any other material, nor storage in a stone coffin.
Incidentally, another possible reason for the inclusion of animal bones – particularly given the very incomplete nature of the sets of human bones present – is that before reinterment in the urn some bones had been made off with as souvenirs and replaced by animal bones of approximately the right size and shape. When Henry VI's remains were examined they too were found to be incomplete and to have been made up with animal bones, and it is thought that this was due to theft of bones as holy relics during the period of his exhumation and reinterment at Windsor in 1484.
.
** "You may recall that Charles II had no doubt about the identity of the bones, that's why they went straight Westminster Abbey." **
Worth remembering that it was still useful for the monarchy to be able to lay to rest any surmise that either of the Princes might have survived to father offspring. There had allegedly been other bones found in the Tower since the end of the Tudor period, and all of them had been excitedly ascribed to the Princes. It is what one would expect.
** "The Dean wishes to respect the Queen's wishes to not disturb the remains of ancestors (who are waiting for the resurrection.)" **
I can understand the Queen's feelings. She was a child when Tanner and Wright's investigation took place, which appeared to confirm that these were indeed the bones of murdered royal children. The whole thing probably made a great emotional impression on her as a royal child, and she seems to remain fairly convinced that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother, and therefore that allowing further examination would set a precedent. I do not agree. Those who would like to see these bones examined do so only because they have a similarly strong feeling that these remains have nothing to do with the Princes, or indeed anyone on Queen Elizabeth's family tree, and are probably a couple of thousand years old and not therefore Christian.
** 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." **
Firstly, "skeletons" is too great a claim to make for these remains. They were found, when the urn was examined, to consist of two partial human skulls (one more complete than the other), various bits of rib, scapulae and vertebrae, and assorted leg and arm bones, plus "a large variety of other bones such as those of fish, duck, chicken, rabbit, sheep, pig, and ox." (Tanner & Wright, p. 20)
As for an elm chest, this appears to be a flight of fancy of T&W as I can't find a reference to elm among any of the contemporary descriptions of the find – or is it from More, anyone know? T&W refer in their article to the bones having been found in an elm chest, but Sandford and Knight, our contemporary sources, state only that the bones were found "in (as it seemed) a wooden chest", which Sandford claimed was broken by the workmen in the digging. But since the workmen were initially able to discard the bones on to the rubbish tip, it seems clear that none of the gentlemen whose accounts we have actually saw the bones being unearthed. If there was a chest, or whether pieces of wood pulled out from the same tip were merely surmised by the "gentlemen" to have belonged to a burial chest, is not clear. A "peat-stained piece of wood" and a few nails were found in the urn but were not, according to a lecture I attended a couple of years ago by the late lamented Bill White, either examined or retained by T & W. Perhaps someone can tell us whether 15th century chests were generally held together with nails or not.
** "They were originally thrown aside with some rubble until their significance as the
possible bones of the two princes was recognized." **
Tanner and Wright confused the rubbish referred to in Sandford's account with the rubble (ruderibus) referred to in the inscription on the urn. In English, the inscription reads:-
"Found, by the most certain signs, on 17 July 1674 deeply buried in the rubble of the stair (that stair which recently led to the chapel in the White Tower).
As Helen Maurer has more recently pointed out, this is not a reference to the rubbish tip, but to the bones' having been found in or under the layer of rubble which was used to underpin the foundations. This indicates – as indeed the text specifically states – that they were buried at considerable depth, and this is corroborated by Sandford's account, according to which the bones were found at a depth of 10 feet.
For me, this in itself rules out a 15th century origin for these children. These bones were not (as you have suggested they may have been) slipped in under a flagstone, but lay buried many many feet down beneath the foundations of structures that dated from the 14th century. In any case, any modern archaeologist coming across a find would date it first and foremost by the depth at which it was discovered. I ask what a modern archaeologist would say about bones found 10 ft below the ground level of the late 17th century. Personally, I would suggest that these bones, like the skeleton discovered in the Tower grounds in the 1970s, probably date from the Iron Age.
** 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," **
These ages have been disputed – see below.
** "they further stated that a blood stain on the elder skull was consistent with death by suffocation," **
To quote from T&W's own report again: "A remarkable feature of Edward's [sic] facial skeleton was an extensive stain reaching from just below the orbits to the angles of the lower jaw. The stain was of a distinctly blood-red colour above, of a dirty brown colour below, and was obviously, as shown by the gradual fading away of its margins, of fluid origin. I have no doubt it was a blood stain. Its presence, together with the complete separation of the facial skeleton, lends support to the traditional account of the manner of the brothers' death – suffocated `under feather bed andpillows, kept down by force hard unto their mouths.'" (p. 18)
You see that T & W, having already identified the bones as belonging to the Princes, were LOOKING for evidence of smothering. No tests were carried out on this stain to see if it really was blood. It would actually be extremely odd for blood which had been exposed to the elements for so long to look red – blood turns brown on oxidation. An equally valid reason for the separation of the facial skeleton, given the depth of burial and broken and partial state of the remains in general, would surely be sheer post-mortem wear & tear.
Unfortunately we can't judge the colour of the stain for ourselves since there are no colour pics of the bones. In fact, none of the photos of the "Edward V" skull show any obvious stain, nor is it referred to in the captions.
Nor was this the only staining on this skull:-
"The left half of the interior of Edward's cranium was stained a dirty brown colour. ..." (p. 22).
** "... there was a dental congruence consanguinity' which indicated they were of the same family, **
The only DENTAL evidence in this direction remarked on by T&W is the lack of a root for one of the molars of the smaller skull, and lack of the upper second premolars in the larger skull.
** "and that congenital missing teeth" **
Ah! Now this appears to be a reference to the claims of Theya Molleson in 1987. She argued that the fact that the "Edward V" jaw had a couple of missing teeth, and that Anne Mowbray lacked six teeth, is strong evidence that the elder child whose bones are in the urn was related to Anne Mowbray. There are two problems with this theory, however. One is that it cannot be proved that, as Molleson claimed, the teeth in "Edward V's" skull were congenitally missing (hypodontia) rather than lost during life (Bill White made this point at this same lecture). The other awkward fact is that Anne Mowbray had very probably inherited the tendency from her mother's side, since the skull of her maternal grandfather John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, also shows hypodontia. But Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes only on her father's side.
* "and certain bilateral Wormian bones of unusual size on both crania were evidence of
consanguinity." *
Here we are talking about consanguinity between the two [sic] individuals in the urn rather than between them and Anne Mowbray – this is another of T &W's arguments which Molleson also argues for. Both the skulls in the urn had Wormian bones.
Wormian bones are extraneous bones usually lying over joints in the cranium. They are/ were more common amongst some populations than others. Uncommon now, I think, they were quite common in earlier periods, but according to Bill White more common in the ancient population than the medieval.
Molleson also went to some trouble to argue (rather tentatively) from the bones in the urn that they had characteristics suggesting they may have been male (to do with eruption of teeth, and comparison between maturity of dentition and the skeleton in general). What she also admitted, however, is the fact that hypodontia is almost twice as common amongst females as males. Bill White notes that Wormian bones are also more common in females.
What I have discovered myself from googling the subject is that Wormian bones are thought to be designed to strengthen a weak cranium, and are associated with various diseases such as brittle bone disease, rickets, Downs syndrome and others. I would suggest that the presence of fairly large Wormian bones in both the skulls in the urn, taken together with the apparent disease in the jaw of the elder child, suggests these children may have struggled with illness and died from natural causes (or, if they were sacrificial victims as has also been suggested, been chosen because of their poor physical state).
** "The lower jaw of the elder child exhibited extensive evidence of the bone disease, osteomyelitis." **
Some disease does seem to have been present in the jaw of the elder child, but the X-rays are not clear and other experts have suggested other diseases, or even the result of dental surgery. Certainly, if it was a serious disease as T&W claimed, then this surely cannot have been Edward V, who was never noted as ill or physically suffering and frequently travelled between Ludlow and London. If this child did have osteomyelitis, then sooner or later he/ she would have succumbed to septicaemia – my mother nursed many cases of osteomyelitis in wounded soldiers during World War II, and when I asked her how they got on she said – well, they all died.
** 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." **
Indeed. Both Bill White and Lyne-Perkis have calcluated the older child to have been too young to have been Edward V. But there is a still more serious problem according to Bill White; the age of the owner of the younger (at death) bones is consistent as between the dentition and the arm bones, but the leg bones are too long, and some other bones also look too advanced. This is the reason for most of the disagreement beetween experts as to the owner's age.
Tanner and Wright were confident that, because they had no more than two sets of anything, they had bones from just two individuals. Apparently modern archaeologists would be expected to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the minimum number of individuals. White suggests that the leg bones and axis that have been paired up with the smaller skull belong to a third individual – or even to two more individuals! – and this is something which could be confirmed or ruled out by a fresh examination. Although it is not in his paper, at the lecture he suggested that the 17th century workmen may possibly have come upon the remains of an ancient burial site.
** "Later reports claim to be unable to determine the sex of either skeleton." **
Too right they do! Not only are the bones those of pre-pubertal children, but there was no pelvic material in the urn at all. T&W didn't claim they could determine the sex – they based their identification of them on other criteria.
Marie
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-15 05:32:15
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry I'm a bit late with this again. These are a few observations on posts by "Vermeertwo".
Thanks, Marie, for providing another thorough and researched summation. I know it takes a lot of research, then time and effort to compose these for us, and I appreciate it.
Katy
>
>
>
> Sorry I'm a bit late with this again. These are a few observations on posts by "Vermeertwo".
Thanks, Marie, for providing another thorough and researched summation. I know it takes a lot of research, then time and effort to compose these for us, and I appreciate it.
Katy
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-16 16:30:39
Thanks Marie!!! Interesting as always!!
--- On Tue, 12/14/10, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
To:
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 6:41 PM
Sorry I'm a bit late with this again. These are a few observations on posts by "Vermeertwo".
** "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 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." **
I don't know your source, but the claim that all modern authorities have backed up Tanner and Wright's view on the ages of the children is misleading see below.
*" "velvet found around one of the skeletal arm remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that
rules Roman children out." **
There was NO velvet found by Tanner and Wright, viz:
"It was found that the bones filled an oblong cavity within the urn. It was at once apparent that they belonged to two human beings, for a fairly complete skull and a portion of another lay upon the top. Many bones were found to be missing but this is accounted for by the fact, as stated in Sandford, that the bones at first were thrown away by the workmen and had subsequently to be recovered from a heap of rubbish. Among the dust at the bottom of the urn we found three much rusted nails, which may possibly have belonged to the original chest in which the bones were buried. No portion of rag, velvet or any other material was found." (Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower, Tanner and Wright, 1935, pp. 14-15)
The story about the velvet comes from a marginal note reputedly found by Richard Davey in 1910 in a heraldry manuscript he had inherited:-
"This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men dig out of a stairway in the White Tower the bones of those two princes who were foully murdered by Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in their teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about them. Being fully recognised to be the bones of those two princes, they were carefully put aside in a stone coffin or coffer."
Tanner tried to trace this manuscript but could not find it. No one else has ever seen it. It's authenticity has also been question because of the inclusion of the word `teens', but in fact this term did make its first entry into the English language during the reign of Charles II. But no other contemporary source mentions either velvet nor any other material, nor storage in a stone coffin.
Incidentally, another possible reason for the inclusion of animal bones particularly given the very incomplete nature of the sets of human bones present is that before reinterment in the urn some bones had been made off with as souvenirs and replaced by animal bones of approximately the right size and shape. When Henry VI's remains were examined they too were found to be incomplete and to have been made up with animal bones, and it is thought that this was due to theft of bones as holy relics during the period of his exhumation and reinterment at Windsor in 1484.
.
** "You may recall that Charles II had no doubt about the identity of the bones, that's why they went straight Westminster Abbey." **
Worth remembering that it was still useful for the monarchy to be able to lay to rest any surmise that either of the Princes might have survived to father offspring. There had allegedly been other bones found in the Tower since the end of the Tudor period, and all of them had been excitedly ascribed to the Princes. It is what one would expect.
** "The Dean wishes to respect the Queen's wishes to not disturb the remains of ancestors (who are waiting for the resurrection.)" **
I can understand the Queen's feelings. She was a child when Tanner and Wright's investigation took place, which appeared to confirm that these were indeed the bones of murdered royal children. The whole thing probably made a great emotional impression on her as a royal child, and she seems to remain fairly convinced that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother, and therefore that allowing further examination would set a precedent. I do not agree. Those who would like to see these bones examined do so only because they have a similarly strong feeling that these remains have nothing to do with the Princes, or indeed anyone on Queen Elizabeth's family tree, and are probably a couple of thousand years old and not therefore Christian.
** 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." **
Firstly, "skeletons" is too great a claim to make for these remains. They were found, when the urn was examined, to consist of two partial human skulls (one more complete than the other), various bits of rib, scapulae and vertebrae, and assorted leg and arm bones, plus "a large variety of other bones such as those of fish, duck, chicken, rabbit, sheep, pig, and ox." (Tanner & Wright, p. 20)
As for an elm chest, this appears to be a flight of fancy of T&W as I can't find a reference to elm among any of the contemporary descriptions of the find or is it from More, anyone know? T&W refer in their article to the bones having been found in an elm chest, but Sandford and Knight, our contemporary sources, state only that the bones were found "in (as it seemed) a wooden chest", which Sandford claimed was broken by the workmen in the digging. But since the workmen were initially able to discard the bones on to the rubbish tip, it seems clear that none of the gentlemen whose accounts we have actually saw the bones being unearthed. If there was a chest, or whether pieces of wood pulled out from the same tip were merely surmised by the "gentlemen" to have belonged to a burial chest, is not clear. A "peat-stained piece of wood" and a few nails were found in the urn but were not, according to a lecture I attended a couple of years ago by the late
lamented Bill White, either examined or retained by T & W. Perhaps someone can tell us whether 15th century chests were generally held together with nails or not.
** "They were originally thrown aside with some rubble until their significance as the
possible bones of the two princes was recognized." **
Tanner and Wright confused the rubbish referred to in Sandford's account with the rubble (ruderibus) referred to in the inscription on the urn. In English, the inscription reads:-
"Found, by the most certain signs, on 17 July 1674 deeply buried in the rubble of the stair (that stair which recently led to the chapel in the White Tower).
As Helen Maurer has more recently pointed out, this is not a reference to the rubbish tip, but to the bones' having been found in or under the layer of rubble which was used to underpin the foundations. This indicates as indeed the text specifically states that they were buried at considerable depth, and this is corroborated by Sandford's account, according to which the bones were found at a depth of 10 feet.
For me, this in itself rules out a 15th century origin for these children. These bones were not (as you have suggested they may have been) slipped in under a flagstone, but lay buried many many feet down beneath the foundations of structures that dated from the 14th century. In any case, any modern archaeologist coming across a find would date it first and foremost by the depth at which it was discovered. I ask what a modern archaeologist would say about bones found 10 ft below the ground level of the late 17th century. Personally, I would suggest that these bones, like the skeleton discovered in the Tower grounds in the 1970s, probably date from the Iron Age.
** 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," **
These ages have been disputed see below.
** "they further stated that a blood stain on the elder skull was consistent with death by suffocation," **
To quote from T&W's own report again: "A remarkable feature of Edward's [sic] facial skeleton was an extensive stain reaching from just below the orbits to the angles of the lower jaw. The stain was of a distinctly blood-red colour above, of a dirty brown colour below, and was obviously, as shown by the gradual fading away of its margins, of fluid origin. I have no doubt it was a blood stain. Its presence, together with the complete separation of the facial skeleton, lends support to the traditional account of the manner of the brothers' death suffocated `under feather bed andpillows, kept down by force hard unto their mouths.'" (p. 18)
You see that T & W, having already identified the bones as belonging to the Princes, were LOOKING for evidence of smothering. No tests were carried out on this stain to see if it really was blood. It would actually be extremely odd for blood which had been exposed to the elements for so long to look red blood turns brown on oxidation. An equally valid reason for the separation of the facial skeleton, given the depth of burial and broken and partial state of the remains in general, would surely be sheer post-mortem wear & tear.
Unfortunately we can't judge the colour of the stain for ourselves since there are no colour pics of the bones. In fact, none of the photos of the "Edward V" skull show any obvious stain, nor is it referred to in the captions.
Nor was this the only staining on this skull:-
"The left half of the interior of Edward's cranium was stained a dirty brown colour. ..." (p. 22).
** "... there was a dental congruence consanguinity' which indicated they were of the same family, **
The only DENTAL evidence in this direction remarked on by T&W is the lack of a root for one of the molars of the smaller skull, and lack of the upper second premolars in the larger skull.
** "and that congenital missing teeth" **
Ah! Now this appears to be a reference to the claims of Theya Molleson in 1987. She argued that the fact that the "Edward V" jaw had a couple of missing teeth, and that Anne Mowbray lacked six teeth, is strong evidence that the elder child whose bones are in the urn was related to Anne Mowbray. There are two problems with this theory, however. One is that it cannot be proved that, as Molleson claimed, the teeth in "Edward V's" skull were congenitally missing (hypodontia) rather than lost during life (Bill White made this point at this same lecture). The other awkward fact is that Anne Mowbray had very probably inherited the tendency from her mother's side, since the skull of her maternal grandfather John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, also shows hypodontia. But Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes only on her father's side.
* "and certain bilateral Wormian bones of unusual size on both crania were evidence of
consanguinity." *
Here we are talking about consanguinity between the two [sic] individuals in the urn rather than between them and Anne Mowbray this is another of T &W's arguments which Molleson also argues for. Both the skulls in the urn had Wormian bones.
Wormian bones are extraneous bones usually lying over joints in the cranium. They are/ were more common amongst some populations than others. Uncommon now, I think, they were quite common in earlier periods, but according to Bill White more common in the ancient population than the medieval.
Molleson also went to some trouble to argue (rather tentatively) from the bones in the urn that they had characteristics suggesting they may have been male (to do with eruption of teeth, and comparison between maturity of dentition and the skeleton in general). What she also admitted, however, is the fact that hypodontia is almost twice as common amongst females as males. Bill White notes that Wormian bones are also more common in females.
What I have discovered myself from googling the subject is that Wormian bones are thought to be designed to strengthen a weak cranium, and are associated with various diseases such as brittle bone disease, rickets, Downs syndrome and others. I would suggest that the presence of fairly large Wormian bones in both the skulls in the urn, taken together with the apparent disease in the jaw of the elder child, suggests these children may have struggled with illness and died from natural causes (or, if they were sacrificial victims as has also been suggested, been chosen because of their poor physical state).
** "The lower jaw of the elder child exhibited extensive evidence of the bone disease, osteomyelitis." **
Some disease does seem to have been present in the jaw of the elder child, but the X-rays are not clear and other experts have suggested other diseases, or even the result of dental surgery. Certainly, if it was a serious disease as T&W claimed, then this surely cannot have been Edward V, who was never noted as ill or physically suffering and frequently travelled between Ludlow and London. If this child did have osteomyelitis, then sooner or later he/ she would have succumbed to septicaemia my mother nursed many cases of osteomyelitis in wounded soldiers during World War II, and when I asked her how they got on she said well, they all died.
** 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." **
Indeed. Both Bill White and Lyne-Perkis have calcluated the older child to have been too young to have been Edward V. But there is a still more serious problem according to Bill White; the age of the owner of the younger (at death) bones is consistent as between the dentition and the arm bones, but the leg bones are too long, and some other bones also look too advanced. This is the reason for most of the disagreement beetween experts as to the owner's age.
Tanner and Wright were confident that, because they had no more than two sets of anything, they had bones from just two individuals. Apparently modern archaeologists would be expected to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the minimum number of individuals. White suggests that the leg bones and axis that have been paired up with the smaller skull belong to a third individual or even to two more individuals! and this is something which could be confirmed or ruled out by a fresh examination. Although it is not in his paper, at the lecture he suggested that the 17th century workmen may possibly have come upon the remains of an ancient burial site.
** "Later reports claim to be unable to determine the sex of either skeleton." **
Too right they do! Not only are the bones those of pre-pubertal children, but there was no pelvic material in the urn at all. T&W didn't claim they could determine the sex they based their identification of them on other criteria.
Marie
--- On Tue, 12/14/10, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
To:
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 6:41 PM
Sorry I'm a bit late with this again. These are a few observations on posts by "Vermeertwo".
** "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 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." **
I don't know your source, but the claim that all modern authorities have backed up Tanner and Wright's view on the ages of the children is misleading see below.
*" "velvet found around one of the skeletal arm remains didn't exist in Roman times, so that
rules Roman children out." **
There was NO velvet found by Tanner and Wright, viz:
"It was found that the bones filled an oblong cavity within the urn. It was at once apparent that they belonged to two human beings, for a fairly complete skull and a portion of another lay upon the top. Many bones were found to be missing but this is accounted for by the fact, as stated in Sandford, that the bones at first were thrown away by the workmen and had subsequently to be recovered from a heap of rubbish. Among the dust at the bottom of the urn we found three much rusted nails, which may possibly have belonged to the original chest in which the bones were buried. No portion of rag, velvet or any other material was found." (Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower, Tanner and Wright, 1935, pp. 14-15)
The story about the velvet comes from a marginal note reputedly found by Richard Davey in 1910 in a heraldry manuscript he had inherited:-
"This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men dig out of a stairway in the White Tower the bones of those two princes who were foully murdered by Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in their teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about them. Being fully recognised to be the bones of those two princes, they were carefully put aside in a stone coffin or coffer."
Tanner tried to trace this manuscript but could not find it. No one else has ever seen it. It's authenticity has also been question because of the inclusion of the word `teens', but in fact this term did make its first entry into the English language during the reign of Charles II. But no other contemporary source mentions either velvet nor any other material, nor storage in a stone coffin.
Incidentally, another possible reason for the inclusion of animal bones particularly given the very incomplete nature of the sets of human bones present is that before reinterment in the urn some bones had been made off with as souvenirs and replaced by animal bones of approximately the right size and shape. When Henry VI's remains were examined they too were found to be incomplete and to have been made up with animal bones, and it is thought that this was due to theft of bones as holy relics during the period of his exhumation and reinterment at Windsor in 1484.
.
** "You may recall that Charles II had no doubt about the identity of the bones, that's why they went straight Westminster Abbey." **
Worth remembering that it was still useful for the monarchy to be able to lay to rest any surmise that either of the Princes might have survived to father offspring. There had allegedly been other bones found in the Tower since the end of the Tudor period, and all of them had been excitedly ascribed to the Princes. It is what one would expect.
** "The Dean wishes to respect the Queen's wishes to not disturb the remains of ancestors (who are waiting for the resurrection.)" **
I can understand the Queen's feelings. She was a child when Tanner and Wright's investigation took place, which appeared to confirm that these were indeed the bones of murdered royal children. The whole thing probably made a great emotional impression on her as a royal child, and she seems to remain fairly convinced that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother, and therefore that allowing further examination would set a precedent. I do not agree. Those who would like to see these bones examined do so only because they have a similarly strong feeling that these remains have nothing to do with the Princes, or indeed anyone on Queen Elizabeth's family tree, and are probably a couple of thousand years old and not therefore Christian.
** 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." **
Firstly, "skeletons" is too great a claim to make for these remains. They were found, when the urn was examined, to consist of two partial human skulls (one more complete than the other), various bits of rib, scapulae and vertebrae, and assorted leg and arm bones, plus "a large variety of other bones such as those of fish, duck, chicken, rabbit, sheep, pig, and ox." (Tanner & Wright, p. 20)
As for an elm chest, this appears to be a flight of fancy of T&W as I can't find a reference to elm among any of the contemporary descriptions of the find or is it from More, anyone know? T&W refer in their article to the bones having been found in an elm chest, but Sandford and Knight, our contemporary sources, state only that the bones were found "in (as it seemed) a wooden chest", which Sandford claimed was broken by the workmen in the digging. But since the workmen were initially able to discard the bones on to the rubbish tip, it seems clear that none of the gentlemen whose accounts we have actually saw the bones being unearthed. If there was a chest, or whether pieces of wood pulled out from the same tip were merely surmised by the "gentlemen" to have belonged to a burial chest, is not clear. A "peat-stained piece of wood" and a few nails were found in the urn but were not, according to a lecture I attended a couple of years ago by the late
lamented Bill White, either examined or retained by T & W. Perhaps someone can tell us whether 15th century chests were generally held together with nails or not.
** "They were originally thrown aside with some rubble until their significance as the
possible bones of the two princes was recognized." **
Tanner and Wright confused the rubbish referred to in Sandford's account with the rubble (ruderibus) referred to in the inscription on the urn. In English, the inscription reads:-
"Found, by the most certain signs, on 17 July 1674 deeply buried in the rubble of the stair (that stair which recently led to the chapel in the White Tower).
As Helen Maurer has more recently pointed out, this is not a reference to the rubbish tip, but to the bones' having been found in or under the layer of rubble which was used to underpin the foundations. This indicates as indeed the text specifically states that they were buried at considerable depth, and this is corroborated by Sandford's account, according to which the bones were found at a depth of 10 feet.
For me, this in itself rules out a 15th century origin for these children. These bones were not (as you have suggested they may have been) slipped in under a flagstone, but lay buried many many feet down beneath the foundations of structures that dated from the 14th century. In any case, any modern archaeologist coming across a find would date it first and foremost by the depth at which it was discovered. I ask what a modern archaeologist would say about bones found 10 ft below the ground level of the late 17th century. Personally, I would suggest that these bones, like the skeleton discovered in the Tower grounds in the 1970s, probably date from the Iron Age.
** 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," **
These ages have been disputed see below.
** "they further stated that a blood stain on the elder skull was consistent with death by suffocation," **
To quote from T&W's own report again: "A remarkable feature of Edward's [sic] facial skeleton was an extensive stain reaching from just below the orbits to the angles of the lower jaw. The stain was of a distinctly blood-red colour above, of a dirty brown colour below, and was obviously, as shown by the gradual fading away of its margins, of fluid origin. I have no doubt it was a blood stain. Its presence, together with the complete separation of the facial skeleton, lends support to the traditional account of the manner of the brothers' death suffocated `under feather bed andpillows, kept down by force hard unto their mouths.'" (p. 18)
You see that T & W, having already identified the bones as belonging to the Princes, were LOOKING for evidence of smothering. No tests were carried out on this stain to see if it really was blood. It would actually be extremely odd for blood which had been exposed to the elements for so long to look red blood turns brown on oxidation. An equally valid reason for the separation of the facial skeleton, given the depth of burial and broken and partial state of the remains in general, would surely be sheer post-mortem wear & tear.
Unfortunately we can't judge the colour of the stain for ourselves since there are no colour pics of the bones. In fact, none of the photos of the "Edward V" skull show any obvious stain, nor is it referred to in the captions.
Nor was this the only staining on this skull:-
"The left half of the interior of Edward's cranium was stained a dirty brown colour. ..." (p. 22).
** "... there was a dental congruence consanguinity' which indicated they were of the same family, **
The only DENTAL evidence in this direction remarked on by T&W is the lack of a root for one of the molars of the smaller skull, and lack of the upper second premolars in the larger skull.
** "and that congenital missing teeth" **
Ah! Now this appears to be a reference to the claims of Theya Molleson in 1987. She argued that the fact that the "Edward V" jaw had a couple of missing teeth, and that Anne Mowbray lacked six teeth, is strong evidence that the elder child whose bones are in the urn was related to Anne Mowbray. There are two problems with this theory, however. One is that it cannot be proved that, as Molleson claimed, the teeth in "Edward V's" skull were congenitally missing (hypodontia) rather than lost during life (Bill White made this point at this same lecture). The other awkward fact is that Anne Mowbray had very probably inherited the tendency from her mother's side, since the skull of her maternal grandfather John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, also shows hypodontia. But Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes only on her father's side.
* "and certain bilateral Wormian bones of unusual size on both crania were evidence of
consanguinity." *
Here we are talking about consanguinity between the two [sic] individuals in the urn rather than between them and Anne Mowbray this is another of T &W's arguments which Molleson also argues for. Both the skulls in the urn had Wormian bones.
Wormian bones are extraneous bones usually lying over joints in the cranium. They are/ were more common amongst some populations than others. Uncommon now, I think, they were quite common in earlier periods, but according to Bill White more common in the ancient population than the medieval.
Molleson also went to some trouble to argue (rather tentatively) from the bones in the urn that they had characteristics suggesting they may have been male (to do with eruption of teeth, and comparison between maturity of dentition and the skeleton in general). What she also admitted, however, is the fact that hypodontia is almost twice as common amongst females as males. Bill White notes that Wormian bones are also more common in females.
What I have discovered myself from googling the subject is that Wormian bones are thought to be designed to strengthen a weak cranium, and are associated with various diseases such as brittle bone disease, rickets, Downs syndrome and others. I would suggest that the presence of fairly large Wormian bones in both the skulls in the urn, taken together with the apparent disease in the jaw of the elder child, suggests these children may have struggled with illness and died from natural causes (or, if they were sacrificial victims as has also been suggested, been chosen because of their poor physical state).
** "The lower jaw of the elder child exhibited extensive evidence of the bone disease, osteomyelitis." **
Some disease does seem to have been present in the jaw of the elder child, but the X-rays are not clear and other experts have suggested other diseases, or even the result of dental surgery. Certainly, if it was a serious disease as T&W claimed, then this surely cannot have been Edward V, who was never noted as ill or physically suffering and frequently travelled between Ludlow and London. If this child did have osteomyelitis, then sooner or later he/ she would have succumbed to septicaemia my mother nursed many cases of osteomyelitis in wounded soldiers during World War II, and when I asked her how they got on she said well, they all died.
** 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." **
Indeed. Both Bill White and Lyne-Perkis have calcluated the older child to have been too young to have been Edward V. But there is a still more serious problem according to Bill White; the age of the owner of the younger (at death) bones is consistent as between the dentition and the arm bones, but the leg bones are too long, and some other bones also look too advanced. This is the reason for most of the disagreement beetween experts as to the owner's age.
Tanner and Wright were confident that, because they had no more than two sets of anything, they had bones from just two individuals. Apparently modern archaeologists would be expected to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the minimum number of individuals. White suggests that the leg bones and axis that have been paired up with the smaller skull belong to a third individual or even to two more individuals! and this is something which could be confirmed or ruled out by a fresh examination. Although it is not in his paper, at the lecture he suggested that the 17th century workmen may possibly have come upon the remains of an ancient burial site.
** "Later reports claim to be unable to determine the sex of either skeleton." **
Too right they do! Not only are the bones those of pre-pubertal children, but there was no pelvic material in the urn at all. T&W didn't claim they could determine the sex they based their identification of them on other criteria.
Marie
Re: The sentimentality about Edward V
2010-12-26 17:47:10
--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> As you asked for a source, the following should do:
>
>
> Horrox, Rosemary (2004), "Grey, Sir Richard (d. 1483)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11547, retrieved 30 August 2010
Carol responds:
Unfortunately, your link only works for subscribers to the DNB (and possibly for persons living in England with access to a public library's computer).
Can you quote the relevant portions of the article? For example, what date does Horrox give for Richard Grey's birth (I'm sure it's approximate)? Even if he were born in 1460, he was closer to Richard of Gloucester's age (birthdate late 1452) than to the former Edward V's (1470). He would not have been educated with a boy at least ten years his junior and probably more.
Carol, who unfortunately can't afford to subscribe to the DNB
>
> As you asked for a source, the following should do:
>
>
> Horrox, Rosemary (2004), "Grey, Sir Richard (d. 1483)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11547, retrieved 30 August 2010
Carol responds:
Unfortunately, your link only works for subscribers to the DNB (and possibly for persons living in England with access to a public library's computer).
Can you quote the relevant portions of the article? For example, what date does Horrox give for Richard Grey's birth (I'm sure it's approximate)? Even if he were born in 1460, he was closer to Richard of Gloucester's age (birthdate late 1452) than to the former Edward V's (1470). He would not have been educated with a boy at least ten years his junior and probably more.
Carol, who unfortunately can't afford to subscribe to the DNB
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.