The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel

More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Martin Bormann was last provably seen alive on 2 May 1945, the day after his leader shot himself, and Artur Axmann (a minor Nuremberg defendant) described Bormann dying in a shoot-out in Berlin that month. This testimony was laughed out of court and Bormann was tried in absentia but, in 1972, his body turned up as described in Berlin and DNA evidence has proved his identity.

A documentary this afternoon claimed that Bormann escaped to Paraguay, died in 1959 and was returned posthumously. Once again, however, the simplest possible explanation that satisfies all the facts is that he died in Berlin and stayed there.

there will always be naysayers..and those who love a good mystery...oooer..how exotic..paraquay..and then shipping the remains back to berlin..
haven't seen the documentary..dare i call it that..but, i'd sure want some very solid evidence to buy that bit of sensationalism
 
there have been bones, claimed to be the princes, found in various places. but the one that sticks..is the "authorised" find..right when the king was having a wee bit of political difficulty.
 
roslyn

--- On Sun, 6/26/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel
To:
Received: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 1:30 PM


 



More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Martin Bormann was last provably seen alive on 2 May 1945, the day after his leader shot himself, and Artur Axmann (a minor Nuremberg defendant) described Bormann dying in a shoot-out in Berlin that month. This testimony was laughed out of court and Bormann was tried in absentia but, in 1972, his body turned up as described in Berlin and DNA evidence has proved his identity.

A documentary this afternoon claimed that Bormann escaped to Paraguay, died in 1959 and was returned posthumously. Once again, however, the simplest possible explanation that satisfies all the facts is that he died in Berlin and stayed there.

On 26 Jun 2011, at 22:30, fayre rose wrote:

> but the one that sticks..is the "authorised" find..right when the king was having a wee bit of political difficulty.
>

What are you suggesting my dear? That politicians use events for their own ends? Never !:-)
Paul

Let's hear it for Occam's razor.





________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 1:30:55 PM
Subject: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern
parallel


More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they
were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Martin Bormann was last provably seen alive on 2 May 1945, the day after his
leader shot himself, and Artur Axmann (a minor Nuremberg defendant) described
Bormann dying in a shoot-out in Berlin that month. This testimony was laughed
out of court and Bormann was tried in absentia but, in 1972, his body turned up
as described in Berlin and DNA evidence has proved his identity.

A documentary this afternoon claimed that Bormann escaped to Paraguay, died in
1959 and was returned posthumously. Once again, however, the simplest possible
explanation that satisfies all the facts is that he died in Berlin and stayed
there.

If all this had occurred in Chicago, I'd have no doubt the bones were moved back. 

Judy,
with a noble list of ex-governors in the stir...as it were. Blago would have moved dem bones, if he'd seen a payoff....


________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel


 
there will always be naysayers..and those who love a good mystery...oooer..how exotic..paraquay..and then shipping the remains back to berlin..
haven't seen the documentary..dare i call it that..but, i'd sure want some very solid evidence to buy that bit of sensationalism
 
there have been bones, claimed to be the princes, found in various places. but the one that sticks..is the "authorised" find..right when the king was having a wee bit of political difficulty.
 
roslyn

--- On Sun, 6/26/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel
To:
Received: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 1:30 PM

 

More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Martin Bormann was last provably seen alive on 2 May 1945, the day after his leader shot himself, and Artur Axmann (a minor Nuremberg defendant) described Bormann dying in a shoot-out in Berlin that month. This testimony was laughed out of court and Bormann was tried in absentia but, in 1972, his body turned up as described in Berlin and DNA evidence has proved his identity.

A documentary this afternoon claimed that Bormann escaped to Paraguay, died in 1959 and was returned posthumously. Once again, however, the simplest possible explanation that satisfies all the facts is that he died in Berlin and stayed there.

Bormann and his companion were found with pieces of glass in their mouths - just as other senior Nazis were chewing cyanide capsules.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel



If all this had occurred in Chicago, I'd have no doubt the bones were moved back.

Judy,
with a noble list of ex-governors in the stir...as it were. Blago would have moved dem bones, if he'd seen a payoff....

________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel


there will always be naysayers..and those who love a good mystery...oooer..how exotic..paraquay..and then shipping the remains back to berlin..
haven't seen the documentary..dare i call it that..but, i'd sure want some very solid evidence to buy that bit of sensationalism

there have been bones, claimed to be the princes, found in various places. but the one that sticks..is the "authorised" find..right when the king was having a wee bit of political difficulty.

roslyn

--- On Sun, 6/26/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel
To:
Received: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 1:30 PM



More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Martin Bormann was last provably seen alive on 2 May 1945, the day after his leader shot himself, and Artur Axmann (a minor Nuremberg defendant) described Bormann dying in a shoot-out in Berlin that month. This testimony was laughed out of court and Bormann was tried in absentia but, in 1972, his body turned up as described in Berlin and DNA evidence has proved his identity.

A documentary this afternoon claimed that Bormann escaped to Paraguay, died in 1959 and was returned posthumously. Once again, however, the simplest possible explanation that satisfies all the facts is that he died in Berlin and stayed there.

--- On Mon, 6/27/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel
To:
Received: Monday, June 27, 2011, 8:26 AM


 




On 26 Jun 2011, at 22:30, fayre rose wrote:

> but the one that sticks..is the "authorised" find..right when the king was having a wee bit of political difficulty.
>

What are you suggesting my dear? That politicians use events for their own ends? Never !:-)
Paul
too bad the people of the 17thC didn't have the internet..
today's politicians try to sell us their "take" on events. thankfully, more and more people are waking up..and not buying into spindoctored truths.
the real truth..travels too fast for them to squelch it...machavelli must be spinning in his grave..centuries of his beaurocratic handbook programming is being undone.
joan..can your timemachine..take us back to the bones? :-))
roslyn


 

And just now, our former gov was found w/foot in mouth. ABC-TV informs he's been found guilty.

Judy ; )


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel


 
Bormann and his companion were found with pieces of glass in their mouths - just as other senior Nazis were chewing cyanide capsules.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel

If all this had occurred in Chicago, I'd have no doubt the bones were moved back.

Judy,
with a noble list of ex-governors in the stir...as it were. Blago would have moved dem bones, if he'd seen a payoff....

________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel

there will always be naysayers..and those who love a good mystery...oooer..how exotic..paraquay..and then shipping the remains back to berlin..
haven't seen the documentary..dare i call it that..but, i'd sure want some very solid evidence to buy that bit of sensationalism

there have been bones, claimed to be the princes, found in various places. but the one that sticks..is the "authorised" find..right when the king was having a wee bit of political difficulty.

roslyn

--- On Sun, 6/26/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel
To:
Received: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 1:30 PM

More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Martin Bormann was last provably seen alive on 2 May 1945, the day after his leader shot himself, and Artur Axmann (a minor Nuremberg defendant) described Bormann dying in a shoot-out in Berlin that month. This testimony was laughed out of court and Bormann was tried in absentia but, in 1972, his body turned up as described in Berlin and DNA evidence has proved his identity.

A documentary this afternoon claimed that Bormann escaped to Paraguay, died in 1959 and was returned posthumously. Once again, however, the simplest possible explanation that satisfies all the facts is that he died in Berlin and stayed there.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.



Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.

Katy

My thought exactly.....  great minds and all that!


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel


 



--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original position.

Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.

Katy

IMO, there is no extant evidence to suggest that Edward had the severe
bone disease the one skull would suggest. Just the opposite in fact,
from reporting that the boys played and shot arrows in the tower garden
to Edward V's athletic prowess. I think that alone more than suggests
that the tower bones are from unknown origin.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> My thought exactly..... great minds and all that!
>
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones -
and a modern parallel
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >
> > More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed
that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original
position.
>
> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were
found exactly where he said they weren't.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

My sieve-like brain also remembers something about the bones found not being complete skeletons.... This, if correct, would suggest those particular bones were moved around a bit, with losses in transit. That would indicate fully decomposed bodies, which would be somewhat unlikely in the short time frames. However, the operative word here might be "frame." The scenario is consistent with a frame up job ("You want bones? We'll give you bones...") And whoever planted them probably had not read More to "know" they'd been "moved" to another location.

Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures, Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never mind he was innocent.


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel


 
IMO, there is no extant evidence to suggest that Edward had the severe
bone disease the one skull would suggest. Just the opposite in fact,
from reporting that the boys played and shot arrows in the tower garden
to Edward V's athletic prowess. I think that alone more than suggests
that the tower bones are from unknown origin.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> My thought exactly..... great minds and all that!
>
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones -
and a modern parallel
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >
> > More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed
that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original
position.
>
> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were
found exactly where he said they weren't.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

Katy wrote:
> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.

Carol responds:

Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory, sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs. I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised rain for my section of parched Arizona).

By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains the wholly fictional withered arm.

Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Katy wrote:
> > Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory, sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs. I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised rain for my section of parched Arizona).
>
> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains the wholly fictional withered arm.
>
> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
>


I was joking.

Katy

one of the chroniclers..says the younger prince was ill. i was bigger than my elder sister. she was a premmie. however, with that being said..moore's moved bones outweighs the supposed finding spot.
 
roslyn

--- On Wed, 6/29/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:


From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones - and a modern parallel
To:
Received: Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 8:31 PM


 



IMO, there is no extant evidence to suggest that Edward had the severe
bone disease the one skull would suggest. Just the opposite in fact,
from reporting that the boys played and shot arrows in the tower garden
to Edward V's athletic prowess. I think that alone more than suggests
that the tower bones are from unknown origin.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> My thought exactly..... great minds and all that!
>
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: The "Princes"' mobile bones -
and a modern parallel
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >
> > More told us exactly where the skeletons were placed, then claimed
that they were moved - but 1672 saw some bones turn up in the original
position.
>
> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were
found exactly where he said they weren't.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some other stiff.

I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser (Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!

Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Katy wrote:
> > > Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory, sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs. I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised rain for my section of parched Arizona).
> >
> > By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains the wholly fictional withered arm.
> >
> > Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
> >
>
>
> I was joking.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser (Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
There's no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than Edward II was the father of Edward III; contemporaries did not doubt Edward II's paternity of the boy, and Edward II was clearly pleased at the birth of his heir. You might want to read this excellent blog post by a historian friend of mine on the subject:

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2011/02/edward-ii-and-his-children-and-why.html

Edward II may have preferred male sexual partners to female ones, but he was with Isabella at the right time to conceive all four of his children and rewarded Isabella for their births with gifts and favors. He also fathered an illegitimate son, Adam.

Susan Higginbotham
Now on sale: The Queen of Last Hopes: The Story of Margaret of Anjou.

Susan thanks for that link.  I don't know too much about Edward II (apart from
his sticky end and the fact that William Wallace never met Isabella!) so this
will be interesting to look at.


________________________________
From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 16:34:53
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 


--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual
>Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners
>throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took
>a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up
>the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
>(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
There's no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than Edward II was the father
of Edward III; contemporaries did not doubt Edward II's paternity of the boy,
and Edward II was clearly pleased at the birth of his heir. You might want to
read this excellent blog post by a historian friend of mine on the subject:

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2011/02/edward-ii-and-his-children-and-why.html


Edward II may have preferred male sexual partners to female ones, but he was
with Isabella at the right time to conceive all four of his children and
rewarded Isabella for their births with gifts and favors. He also fathered an
illegitimate son, Adam.

Susan Higginbotham
Now on sale: The Queen of Last Hopes: The Story of Margaret of Anjou.

Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only child.
The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
Paul



On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:

>
>
>
> We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some other stiff.
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser (Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Katy wrote:
>>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory, sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs. I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised rain for my section of parched Arizona).
>>>
>>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains the wholly fictional withered arm.
>>>
>>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was joking.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Susan wrote:
> There's no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than Edward II was the father of Edward III; contemporaries did not doubt Edward II's paternity of the boy, and Edward II was clearly pleased at the birth of his heir. You might want to read this excellent blog post by a historian friend of mine on the subject:
>
> http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2011/02/edward-ii-and-his-children-and-why.html
>
> Edward II may have preferred male sexual partners to female ones, but he was with Isabella at the right time to conceive all four of his children and rewarded Isabella for their births with gifts and favors. He also fathered an illegitimate son, Adam.

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for that link. I like both the stated intention of the blogger and the set-up (factual blogs, links to biographies and documents. etc.). Some well-informed person with time on his or her hands should do something similar for Richard, making both the controversy and the facts and documents relating to him available to the general public. So few people that I talk to have even heard of him, and those few wonder why I care about the reputation of a man who died more than 500 years ago.

Carol, wishing she could go to England to escape the heat (high temp today will be 111 degrees F.)

Paul,

The pictures could be Photoshopped --- modern version of More et.al. :-)



Peggy

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their
> only child.
> The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
> story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as
> much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
> Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during
> the WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch.
> They may have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes
> or some other stiff.
> >
> > I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly
> homosexual Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have
> gay partners throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by
> him that she took a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an
> unfortunate red hot poker up the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers
> Gaveston and Hugh Despenser (Isabella presiding) were mutilated and
> executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
> >
> > Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Katy wrote:
> >>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were
> found exactly where he said they weren't.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from
> memory, sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of
> some stairs. I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of
> course, that More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which
> falsely promised rain for my section of parched Arizona).
> >>>
> >>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My
> guess is that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that
> the scene takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval
> symbolism attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene
> also contains the wholly fictional withered arm.
> >>>
> >>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring
> them those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was joking.
> >>
> >> Katy
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I'll pass on the pictures, unless of course they were exceedingly handsome fellows : )

And charges of sodomy have been used to discredit people then as now.

(If only we'd just let people have their private lives? But that's a story unto itself...)

Judy


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only child.
The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
Paul

On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:

>
>
>
> We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some other stiff.
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser (Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Katy wrote:
>>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly where he said they weren't.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory, sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs. I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised rain for my section of parched Arizona).
>>>
>>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains the wholly fictional withered arm.
>>>
>>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was joking.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
sodomite?  A bit like Clarence drowning in his  butt of Malmsey
.  It may be that neither are literally true.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only
child.
The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as
much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the
WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may
have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
Paul

On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:

>
>
>
> We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some
>other stiff.
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual
>Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners
>throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took
>a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up
>the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
>(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Katy wrote:
>>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly
>>>>where he said they weren't.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory,
>>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs.
>>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that
>>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised
>>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
>>>
>>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is
>>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene
>>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism
>>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains
>>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
>>>
>>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them
>>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was joking.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

my understanding is that e2 was murdered with this method so that there would be no outward or obvious physical signs of the murder. impaling was something that was becoming fashionable after the crusades.
 
also, if i correctly recall there is even a rumour/myth that e2 escaped. i could be confusing him with another king though.
 
and if you feel a need to raise an eyebrow towards one's sexuality, then raise it towards king james the first of england..the man who commissioned the production of the popular kjv bible. he had several children with his wife and it is also rumoured with a lot of evidence that he liked his male companions too.
 
elizabeth i was the queen who was king and james i was the king who was queen.
sir walter raliegh, i believe is reported to have made this statement, and it got him into a fair bit of trouble. btw..i am writing offf the top of my head..being just a little too tired and lazy to look it up in my notes.
 
perhaps it is time for the "religious" to stop persecuting consenting adults...and start looking at why several of the states in the usa have no laws against beastiality.
it is illegal in canada and the u.k.
 
roslyn

--- On Sat, 7/2/11, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:


From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Received: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 3:36 PM


 



Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
sodomite?  A bit like Clarence drowning in his  butt of Malmsey
.  It may be that neither are literally true.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only
child.
The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as
much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the
WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may
have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
Paul

On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:

>
>
>
> We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some
>other stiff.
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual
>Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners
>throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took
>a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up
>the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
>(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Katy wrote:
>>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly
>>>>where he said they weren't.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory,
>>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs.
>>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that
>>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised
>>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
>>>
>>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is
>>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene
>>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism
>>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains
>>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
>>>
>>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them
>>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was joking.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 

If memory serves, it's a pro-Yorkist novel, but it avoids the issue of the boys in the Tower by being "written" just before RIII's reign. If anyone finds a nice, early copy in good condition, I've been looking....

Judy


________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
my understanding is that e2 was murdered with this method so that there would be no outward or obvious physical signs of the murder. impaling was something that was becoming fashionable after the crusades.
 
also, if i correctly recall there is even a rumour/myth that e2 escaped. i could be confusing him with another king though.
 
and if you feel a need to raise an eyebrow towards one's sexuality, then raise it towards king james the first of england..the man who commissioned the production of the popular kjv bible. he had several children with his wife and it is also rumoured with a lot of evidence that he liked his male companions too.
 
elizabeth i was the queen who was king and james i was the king who was queen.
sir walter raliegh, i believe is reported to have made this statement, and it got him into a fair bit of trouble. btw..i am writing offf the top of my head..being just a little too tired and lazy to look it up in my notes.
 
perhaps it is time for the "religious" to stop persecuting consenting adults...and start looking at why several of the states in the usa have no laws against beastiality.
it is illegal in canada and the u.k.
 
roslyn

--- On Sat, 7/2/11, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Received: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 3:36 PM

 

Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
sodomite?  A bit like Clarence drowning in his  butt of Malmsey
.  It may be that neither are literally true.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only
child.
The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as
much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the
WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may
have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
Paul

On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:

>
>
>
> We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some
>other stiff.
>
> I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual
>Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners
>throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took
>a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up
>the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
>(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
>
> Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Katy wrote:
>>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly
>>>>where he said they weren't.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory,
>>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs.
>>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that
>>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised
>>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
>>>
>>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is
>>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene
>>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism
>>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains
>>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
>>>
>>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them
>>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was joking.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

There is indeed a theory that Edward II escaped (or was allowed to escape) from Berkeley Castle and died in Italy. Historians are divided about the theory, but Ian Mortimer for one makes a strong argument for it. I'm not convinced myself, but a case can certainly be made for it. Mortimer has written about this theory in The Greatest Traitor (a biography of Roger Mortimer, not a relation of his) and in The Perfect King (a biography of Edward III), as well as in journal articles. He also discusses it (as well as the red-hot poker story) on his website:

http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/index.htm

Susan Higginbotham
Now on sale: The Queen of Last Hopes: The Story of Margaret of Anjou

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 
>
> If memory serves, it's a pro-Yorkist novel, but it avoids the issue of the boys in the Tower by being "written" just before RIII's reign. If anyone finds a nice, early copy in good condition, I've been looking....
>
> Judy
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>  
> my understanding is that e2 was murdered with this method so that there would be no outward or obvious physical signs of the murder. impaling was something that was becoming fashionable after the crusades.
>  
> also, if i correctly recall there is even a rumour/myth that e2 escaped. i could be confusing him with another king though.
>  
> and if you feel a need to raise an eyebrow towards one's sexuality, then raise it towards king james the first of england..the man who commissioned the production of the popular kjv bible. he had several children with his wife and it is also rumoured with a lot of evidence that he liked his male companions too.
>  
> elizabeth i was the queen who was king and james i was the king who was queen.
> sir walter raliegh, i believe is reported to have made this statement, and it got him into a fair bit of trouble. btw..i am writing offf the top of my head..being just a little too tired and lazy to look it up in my notes.
>  
> perhaps it is time for the "religious" to stop persecuting consenting adults...and start looking at why several of the states in the usa have no laws against beastiality.
> it is illegal in canada and the u.k.
>  
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sat, 7/2/11, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 3:36 PM
>
>  
>
> Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
> sodomite?  A bit like Clarence drowning in his  butt of Malmsey
> .  It may be that neither are literally true.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>  
> Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only
> child.
> The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
> story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as
> much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
> Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the
> WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may
> have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
> Paul
>
> On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some
> >other stiff.
> >
> > I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual
> >Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners
> >throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took
> >a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up
> >the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
> >(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
> >
> > Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Katy wrote:
> >>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly
> >>>>where he said they weren't.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory,
> >>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs.
> >>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that
> >>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised
> >>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
> >>>
> >>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is
> >>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene
> >>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism
> >>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains
> >>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
> >>>
> >>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them
> >>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was joking.
> >>
> >> Katy
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I meant to add that Mortimer also has a biography of Richard, Duke of York, entitled "The Warrior of the Roses: the Life of Richard, Duke of York" scheduled for publication. I don't see an expected date on his website.

--- In , "Susan" <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:
>
> There is indeed a theory that Edward II escaped (or was allowed to escape) from Berkeley Castle and died in Italy. Historians are divided about the theory, but Ian Mortimer for one makes a strong argument for it. I'm not convinced myself, but a case can certainly be made for it. Mortimer has written about this theory in The Greatest Traitor (a biography of Roger Mortimer, not a relation of his) and in The Perfect King (a biography of Edward III), as well as in journal articles. He also discusses it (as well as the red-hot poker story) on his website:
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/index.htm
>
> Susan Higginbotham
> Now on sale: The Queen of Last Hopes: The Story of Margaret of Anjou
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 
> >
> > If memory serves, it's a pro-Yorkist novel, but it avoids the issue of the boys in the Tower by being "written" just before RIII's reign. If anyone finds a nice, early copy in good condition, I've been looking....
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> >
> >
> >  
> > my understanding is that e2 was murdered with this method so that there would be no outward or obvious physical signs of the murder. impaling was something that was becoming fashionable after the crusades.
> >  
> > also, if i correctly recall there is even a rumour/myth that e2 escaped. i could be confusing him with another king though.
> >  
> > and if you feel a need to raise an eyebrow towards one's sexuality, then raise it towards king james the first of england..the man who commissioned the production of the popular kjv bible. he had several children with his wife and it is also rumoured with a lot of evidence that he liked his male companions too.
> >  
> > elizabeth i was the queen who was king and james i was the king who was queen.
> > sir walter raliegh, i believe is reported to have made this statement, and it got him into a fair bit of trouble. btw..i am writing offf the top of my head..being just a little too tired and lazy to look it up in my notes.
> >  
> > perhaps it is time for the "religious" to stop persecuting consenting adults...and start looking at why several of the states in the usa have no laws against beastiality.
> > it is illegal in canada and the u.k.
> >  
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Sat, 7/2/11, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> > To:
> > Received: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 3:36 PM
> >
> >  
> >
> > Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
> > sodomite?  A bit like Clarence drowning in his  butt of Malmsey
> > .  It may be that neither are literally true.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> >
> >  
> > Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their only
> > child.
> > The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
> > story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had as
> > much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
> > Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during the
> > WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They may
> > have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes or some
> > >other stiff.
> > >
> > > I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly homosexual
> > >Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay partners
> > >throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she took
> > >a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot poker up
> > >the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
> > >(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in Heaven!
> > >
> > > Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Katy wrote:
> > >>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found exactly
> > >>>>where he said they weren't.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol responds:
> > >>>
> > >>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from memory,
> > >>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some stairs.
> > >>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course, that
> > >>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely promised
> > >>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
> > >>>
> > >>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My guess is
> > >>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the scene
> > >>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval symbolism
> > >>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also contains
> > >>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring them
> > >>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I was joking.
> > >>
> > >> Katy
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Judy - you'll find 2 early copies on Abe Books for $6 & $5 both 1921
hardback editions. Shipping within USA around $5...(thats if its called
Chivalry *Dizam Des
Reines<http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=973849379&searchurl=an%3DJames%2BBranch%2BCabell%26kn%3Dchivalry%26x%3D0%26y%3D0>
* !)
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=James+Branch+Cabell&kn=chivalry&x=0&y=0
Hope that helps!

Lisa

On 2 July 2011 20:53, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
> Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
> entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
> think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....
>
> If memory serves, it's a pro-Yorkist novel, but it avoids the issue of the
> boys in the Tower by being "written" just before RIII's reign. If anyone
> finds a nice, early copy in good condition, I've been looking....
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be
> sure?
>
>
> my understanding is that e2 was murdered with this method so that there
> would be no outward or obvious physical signs of the murder. impaling was
> something that was becoming fashionable after the crusades.
>
> also, if i correctly recall there is even a rumour/myth that e2 escaped. i
> could be confusing him with another king though.
>
> and if you feel a need to raise an eyebrow towards one's sexuality, then
> raise it towards king james the first of england..the man who commissioned
> the production of the popular kjv bible. he had several children with his
> wife and it is also rumoured with a lot of evidence that he liked his male
> companions too.
>
> elizabeth i was the queen who was king and james i was the king who was
> queen.
> sir walter raliegh, i believe is reported to have made this statement, and
> it got him into a fair bit of trouble. btw..i am writing offf the top of my
> head..being just a little too tired and lazy to look it up in my notes.
>
> perhaps it is time for the "religious" to stop persecuting consenting
> adults...and start looking at why several of the states in the usa have no
> laws against beastiality.
> it is illegal in canada and the u.k.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sat, 7/2/11, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be
> sure?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 3:36 PM
>
>
>
> Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
> sodomite? A bit like Clarence drowning in his butt of Malmsey
> . It may be that neither are literally true.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be
> sure?
>
>
> Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their
> only
> child.
> The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
>
> story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had
> as
> much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
> Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during
> the
> WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They
> may
> have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
> Paul
>
> On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes
> or some
> >other stiff.
> >
> > I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly
> homosexual
> >Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay
> partners
> >throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she
> took
> >a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot
> poker up
> >the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
>
> >(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in
> Heaven!
> >
> > Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@...>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Katy wrote:
> >>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found
> exactly
> >>>>where he said they weren't.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from
> memory,
> >>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some
> stairs.
> >>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course,
> that
> >>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely
> promised
> >>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
> >>>
> >>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My
> guess is
> >>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the
> scene
> >>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval
> symbolism
> >>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also
> contains
> >>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
> >>>
> >>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring
> them
> >>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was joking.
> >>
> >> Katy
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 


The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.

Katy

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> >
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy


Indeed Katy, you have hit the nail squarely on the head there. Even with a display of a body, medieval people were often willing to believe in survival. Henry IV was plagued for the whole of his reign by the existence of 'Richard II' in Scotland. (If you believe the official line everyone hated Richard until he was dead, when suddenly they all decided he was wonderful and started hating Henry instead.)

If Richard III offed the lads without making it clear they were dead, he was storing up a realm of trouble for himself as one of them was sure to be resurrected later on as a focus for rebellion. Which is what happened with 'Perkin Warbeck' who was believed to be Richard Duke of York by most of the courts of Europe, whether he was or not.

Edward II is an interesting case - some quite serious scholars of his reign believe he survived. There is, for example, a letter of the Archbishop of York declaring this some years after his 'death'. Another mystery!

Brian W

Even better (for price); I offered $50 to our Local for a tattered book on the "little princes;" as my dealer friends suggested, I was grossly over paying! Fortunately, they withdrew their offer in hopes of bigger bucks...chances are, I'll find another copy of this too : )

Judy


________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Hi Judy - you'll find 2 early copies on Abe Books for $6 & $5 both 1921
hardback editions. Shipping within USA around $5...(thats if its called
Chivalry *Dizam Des
Reines<http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=973849379&searchurl=an%3DJames%2BBranch%2BCabell%26kn%3Dchivalry%26x%3D0%26y%3D0>
* !)
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=James+Branch+Cabell&kn=chivalry&x=0&y=0
Hope that helps!

Lisa

On 2 July 2011 20:53, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
> Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
> entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
> think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....
>
> If memory serves, it's a pro-Yorkist novel, but it avoids the issue of the
> boys in the Tower by being "written" just before RIII's reign. If anyone
> finds a nice, early copy in good condition, I've been looking....
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be
> sure?
>
>
> my understanding is that e2 was murdered with this method so that there
> would be no outward or obvious physical signs of the murder. impaling was
> something that was becoming fashionable after the crusades.
>
> also, if i correctly recall there is even a rumour/myth that e2 escaped. i
> could be confusing him with another king though.
>
> and if you feel a need to raise an eyebrow towards one's sexuality, then
> raise it towards king james the first of england..the man who commissioned
> the production of the popular kjv bible. he had several children with his
> wife and it is also rumoured with a lot of evidence that he liked his male
> companions too.
>
> elizabeth i was the queen who was king and james i was the king who was
> queen.
> sir walter raliegh, i believe is reported to have made this statement, and
> it got him into a fair bit of trouble. btw..i am writing offf the top of my
> head..being just a little too tired and lazy to look it up in my notes.
>
> perhaps it is time for the "religious" to stop persecuting consenting
> adults...and start looking at why several of the states in the usa have no
> laws against beastiality.
> it is illegal in canada and the u.k.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sat, 7/2/11, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be
> sure?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 3:36 PM
>
>
>
> Well couldn't the red hot poker be a comment on the death of an alleged
> sodomite?  A bit like Clarence drowning in his  butt of Malmsey
> .  It may be that neither are literally true.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 18:03:22
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be
> sure?
>
>
> Many homosexuals have children with their wives, and Edward was not their
> only
> child.
> The red hot poker story is just that, a story, with as much proof as More's
>
> story of the sons of Edward IV. Isabella's taking Mortimer as a lover had
> as
> much to do with her own ambitions for power than it did anything else.
> Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were in the same boat as Somerset during
> the
> WOTR, bad councillors considered to be a bad influence on the monarch. They
> may
> have been the kings lovers they may not. Show me the pictures!
> Paul
>
> On 2 Jul 2011, at 15:58, HI wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > We don't actually know to whom these bones belong: could be the princes
> or some
> >other stiff.
> >
> > I've wondered if Edward III was actually the child of the rampantly
> homosexual
> >Edward II: given that he was gay from youth and continued to have gay
> partners
> >throughout his marriage to Isabella? She was so infuriated by him that she
> took
> >a lover: Roger Mortimer and Edward II received an unfortunate red hot
> poker up
> >the anus: so we are told, and his lovers Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser
>
> >(Isabella presiding) were mutilated and executed. Not a marriage made in
> Heaven!
> >
> > Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@...>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Katy wrote:
> >>>> Isn't that "proof" that More is totally reliable? The bones were found
> exactly
> >>>>where he said they weren't.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Except that "metely deep at the foot of the stairs" (quoted from
> memory,
> >>>sorry!) is not the same as ten feet "beneath the foundations" of some
> stairs.
> >>>I'm not sure what everyone is trying to prove here. I agree, of course,
> that
> >>>More is about as reliable as yesterday's weather report (which falsely
> promised
> >>>rain for my section of parched Arizona).
> >>>
> >>> By the way, someone mentioned the strawberry scene a while back. My
> guess is
> >>>that it was added to provide a touch of verisimilitude given that the
> scene
> >>>takes place in June, possibly with some now unfathomable medieval
> symbolism
> >>>attached. I've never taken it at face value given that the scene also
> contains
> >>>the wholly fictional withered arm.
> >>>
> >>> Carol, who suspects that the bones were Roman and agrees that declaring
> them
> >>>those of the "princes" was a timely political ploy
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was joking.
> >>
> >> Katy
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ah, Katy, my very "version" on all counts! : D


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 

The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.

Katy

I keep thinking of "Elvis" sightings whenever I read this sort of
discussion. [:D]

Interestingly, I just put up a new post on my blog that talks about DNA
evidence in regards to Richard III and the tower bones here
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2011/07/richard-iii-law-and-innocence-projec\
t.html> . I also go into more depth on DNA as it relates to those bones
in my latest novel. I tried very hard to avoid being too expository, but
since it was important to the story, I had to do more than just skim
over it.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "Brian"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > >
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one
of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had
become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would
have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them.
Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of
action.
> >
> > Katy
>
>
> Indeed Katy, you have hit the nail squarely on the head there. Even
with a display of a body, medieval people were often willing to believe
in survival. Henry IV was plagued for the whole of his reign by the
existence of 'Richard II' in Scotland. (If you believe the official line
everyone hated Richard until he was dead, when suddenly they all decided
he was wonderful and started hating Henry instead.)
>
> If Richard III offed the lads without making it clear they were dead,
he was storing up a realm of trouble for himself as one of them was sure
to be resurrected later on as a focus for rebellion. Which is what
happened with 'Perkin Warbeck' who was believed to be Richard Duke of
York by most of the courts of Europe, whether he was or not.
>
> Edward II is an interesting case - some quite serious scholars of his
reign believe he survived. There is, for example, a letter of the
Archbishop of York declaring this some years after his 'death'. Another
mystery!
>
> Brian W
>

Perhaps a Richard sighting or two is in order!


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
I keep thinking of "Elvis" sightings whenever I read this sort of
discussion. [:D]

Interestingly, I just put up a new post on my blog that talks about DNA
evidence in regards to Richard III and the tower bones here
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2011/07/richard-iii-law-and-innocence-projec\
t.html> . I also go into more depth on DNA as it relates to those bones
in my latest novel. I tried very hard to avoid being too expository, but
since it was important to the story, I had to do more than just skim
over it.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "Brian"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > >
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one
of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had
become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would
have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them.
Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of
action.
> >
> > Katy
>
>
> Indeed Katy, you have hit the nail squarely on the head there. Even
with a display of a body, medieval people were often willing to believe
in survival. Henry IV was plagued for the whole of his reign by the
existence of 'Richard II' in Scotland. (If you believe the official line
everyone hated Richard until he was dead, when suddenly they all decided
he was wonderful and started hating Henry instead.)
>
> If Richard III offed the lads without making it clear they were dead,
he was storing up a realm of trouble for himself as one of them was sure
to be resurrected later on as a focus for rebellion. Which is what
happened with 'Perkin Warbeck' who was believed to be Richard Duke of
York by most of the courts of Europe, whether he was or not.
>
> Edward II is an interesting case - some quite serious scholars of his
reign believe he survived. There is, for example, a letter of the
Archbishop of York declaring this some years after his 'death'. Another
mystery!
>
> Brian W
>

If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> mind he was innocent.
>

Absolute proof over these events isn't really there; we can't have a video recording of Edward II shafting or being shafted by men (as reported) and it's equally possible that Isabella slipped into bed with someone other than Edward II to produce her four children. It was reported that Edward II refused to sit with Isabella on their wedding day and allowed his lover Piers to wear her jewelry: the French aristocracy accompanying Isabella were outraged. So, maybe Isabella planned revenge both maritally and a la poker from early in their marriage.

Other Queens may've been unfaithful as according to the attitude of Katherine Howard who cuckolded the fat and smelly Henry VIII.

Money can't buy you true love, only fleeting carnal pleasure sometimes.


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a Richard sighting or two is in order!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>  
> I keep thinking of "Elvis" sightings whenever I read this sort of
> discussion. [:D]
>
> Interestingly, I just put up a new post on my blog that talks about DNA
> evidence in regards to Richard III and the tower bones here
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2011/07/richard-iii-law-and-innocence-projec\
> t.html> . I also go into more depth on DNA as it relates to those bones
> in my latest novel. I tried very hard to avoid being too expository, but
> since it was important to the story, I had to do more than just skim
> over it.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
> the 21st-century
> This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book Awards
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786
>
> --- In , "Brian"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> oregon_katy@ wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one
> of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had
> become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would
> have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them.
> Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of
> action.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> >
> > Indeed Katy, you have hit the nail squarely on the head there. Even
> with a display of a body, medieval people were often willing to believe
> in survival. Henry IV was plagued for the whole of his reign by the
> existence of 'Richard II' in Scotland. (If you believe the official line
> everyone hated Richard until he was dead, when suddenly they all decided
> he was wonderful and started hating Henry instead.)
> >
> > If Richard III offed the lads without making it clear they were dead,
> he was storing up a realm of trouble for himself as one of them was sure
> to be resurrected later on as a focus for rebellion. Which is what
> happened with 'Perkin Warbeck' who was believed to be Richard Duke of
> York by most of the courts of Europe, whether he was or not.
> >
> > Edward II is an interesting case - some quite serious scholars of his
> reign believe he survived. There is, for example, a letter of the
> Archbishop of York declaring this some years after his 'death'. Another
> mystery!
> >
> > Brian W
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.



--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

One might just as well say that it would have been daft of Edward IV to display the body of Henry VI, but he did it anyway, because it was the obvious way to scotch rebellion in Henry's name. There's a point at which second-guessing and double-second-guessing result in sheer futility, when the best thing is simply to do what everyone expects you to do.

Also I should mention that events didn't quite happen in the sequence suggested here. Henry Tudor did not make any public announcement of his intentions towards Elizabeth of York until Christmas. The implication that the boys were dead came from a rumour circulated some months earlier as part of what's generally called Buckingham's Rebellion, which was quickly stamped out. Contrary to the claims of historians, there are VERY few intimations in contemporaneous records that suggest Richard III did away with Edward IV's sons. Far fewer than you would expect, in fact. They are all listed and analysed in "Maligned King", pp.152-155.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

You can watch the Secret's of the Dead video on PBS here
<http://video.pbs.org/video/1211797061> . From what I remember about
the case, the investigators now think the evidence against him was
planted.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the
cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from
the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but
if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she
would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
judygerard.thomson@ wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>

Well said, Annette.

Judy,
writing from the Colonies; perhaps we'd still be British subjects, if...? Ah, there's food for a novel, surely. 


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
One might just as well say that it would have been daft of Edward IV to display the body of Henry VI, but he did it anyway, because it was the obvious way to scotch rebellion in Henry's name. There's a point at which second-guessing and double-second-guessing result in sheer futility, when the best thing is simply to do what everyone expects you to do.

Also I should mention that events didn't quite happen in the sequence suggested here. Henry Tudor did not make any public announcement of his intentions towards Elizabeth of York until Christmas. The implication that the boys were dead came from a rumour circulated some months earlier as part of what's generally called Buckingham's Rebellion, which was quickly stamped out. Contrary to the claims of historians, there are VERY few intimations in contemporaneous records that suggest Richard III did away with Edward IV's sons. Far fewer than you would expect, in fact. They are all listed and analysed in "Maligned King", pp.152-155.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

Well, where ever Cora was, she wasn't in the root cellar; DNA, etc. has proven this one, and Crippen's family now requests an official Statement..and removal from Mme. Tussaud's, I'd imagine.

Judy


________________________________
From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: Crippen


 
If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> mind he was innocent.
>

Thanks, Joan. Good follow-through!

Judy


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Crippen


 
You can watch the Secret's of the Dead video on PBS here
<http://video.pbs.org/video/1211797061> . From what I remember about
the case, the investigators now think the evidence against him was
planted.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the
cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from
the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but
if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she
would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
judygerard.thomson@ wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>

Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.

(Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)

Judy Chicago


________________________________
From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: Crippen


 
If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> mind he was innocent.
>

love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck raking stick?
 
it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.
 
there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he, himself died in late august 1483.
i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)

tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older daughters.
his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister cecily.
too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely common among the upper crust of society.
 
tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power behind the throne.
 
now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.
 
roslyn
 

--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM


 



Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward IV this would clarify matters.

I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up.  Or is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....

A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth.  Sure if they were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but we would know if it were them.



--- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39







 









love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck raking stick?

 

it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.

 

there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he, himself died in late august 1483.

i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)



tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older daughters.

his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister cecily.

too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely common among the upper crust of society.

 

tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power behind the throne.

 

now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.

 

roslyn

 



--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:



From: HI <hi.dung@...>

Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

To:

Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM



 



Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.



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

>

>

>

> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:

> >

> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 

>

>

> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

>

> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.

>

> Katy

>

COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of Windsor..

----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward IV this would clarify matters.

I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....

A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but we would know if it were them.

--- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39



love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck raking stick?



it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.



there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he, himself died in late august 1483.

i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)

tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older daughters.

his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister cecily.

too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely common among the upper crust of society.



tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power behind the throne.



now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.



roslyn



--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: HI <hi.dung@...>

Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

To:

Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM



Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

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

>

>

>

> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:

> >

> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â

>

>

> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

>

> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.

>

> Katy

>

I realize I am a lone voice, but I would rather wait until science has reliable ways of ascertaining more about the remains in the urn than can be established with today's techniques. Once that urn is opened, it is going to be sealed again for a verrrrry long time. I'd rather wait until something meaningful can be established with certainty.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward IV this would clarify matters.

I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....

A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but we would know if it were them.

--- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39



love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck raking stick?



it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.



there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he, himself died in late august 1483.

i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)

tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older daughters.

his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister cecily.

too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely common among the upper crust of society.



tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power behind the throne.



now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.



roslyn



--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: HI <hi.dung@...>

Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

To:

Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM



Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

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

>

>

>

> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:

> >

> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â

>

>

> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

>

> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.

>

> Katy

>

whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of her ancestors,
the link is very very distant





________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the
technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen
would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward
IV this would clarify matters.

I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link
between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up.  Or
is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....

A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA
evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth.  Sure if they
were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but
we would know if it were them.

--- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39

 

love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck
raking stick?

 

it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even
displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and
had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less
aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.

 

there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency
before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read
one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he,
himself died in late august 1483.

i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it
originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)

tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's
older daughters.

his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister
cecily.

too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't
picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be
reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs
was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely
common among the upper crust of society.

 

tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated
as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power
behind the throne.

 

now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly
overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would
have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing
power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.

 

roslyn

 

--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: HI <hi.dung@...>

Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

To:

Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM

 

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies
of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his
killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their
sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley,
would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it,
he's had plenty of over the centuries.


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

>

>

>

> --- In , Judy Thomson
><judygerard.thomson@> wrote:

> >

> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
>Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
>entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
>think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 

>

>

> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just
>away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think
>of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not
>that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put
>on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave
>and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a
>double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim
>Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

>

> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the
>major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the
>"princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on
>view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about
>the least desirable course of action.

>

> Katy

>

Where does Saki come into this ?

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.
>
> (Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)
>
> Judy Chicago
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Crippen
>
>
>  
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ooh - my father was Welsh but it was my mother who was a Perkins!    They did
come from the Severn valley area though so maybe that counts?  :-)




________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011 17:27:34
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no
descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any
Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of
Windsor..

----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the
technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen
would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward
IV this would clarify matters.

I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link
between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or
is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....

A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA
evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they
were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but
we would know if it were them.

--- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39

love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck
raking stick?

it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even
displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and
had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less
aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.

there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency
before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read
one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he,
himself died in late august 1483.

i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it
originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)

tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older
daughters.

his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister
cecily.

too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't
picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be
reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs
was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely
common among the upper crust of society.

tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated
as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power
behind the throne.

now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly
overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would
have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing
power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.

roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: HI <hi.dung@...>

Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

To:

Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies
of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his
killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their
sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley,
would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it,
he's had plenty of over the centuries.


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

>

>

>

> --- In , Judy Thomson
><judygerard.thomson@> wrote:

> >

> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
>Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
>entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
>think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>

>

>

> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just
>away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think
>of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not
>that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put
>on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave
>and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a
>double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim
>Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

>

> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the
>major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the
>"princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on
>view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about
>the least desirable course of action.

>

> Katy

>

I think she means the US serial killer HH Holmes, who built a castle in a city centre.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Crippen



Where does Saki come into this ?

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.
>
> (Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)
>
> Judy Chicago
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Crippen
>
>
> Â
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sounds good - "Perkin"'s peregrinations from 1487-99 led him to South Wales with his wife (Lady Katherine Gordon) and some sources give them one or more children - see the article a few years ago.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Ooh - my father was Welsh but it was my mother who was a Perkins! They did
come from the Severn valley area though so maybe that counts? :-)

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011 17:27:34
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no
descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any
Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of
Windsor..

----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the
technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen
would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward
IV this would clarify matters.

I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link
between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or
is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....

A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA
evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they
were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but
we would know if it were them.

--- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39

love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck
raking stick?

it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even
displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and
had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less
aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.

there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency
before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read
one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he,
himself died in late august 1483.

i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it
originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)

tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older
daughters.

his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister
cecily.

too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't
picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be
reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs
was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely
common among the upper crust of society.

tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated
as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power
behind the throne.

now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly
overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would
have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing
power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.

roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: HI <hi.dung@...>

Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

To:

Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies
of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his
killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their
sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley,
would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it,
he's had plenty of over the centuries.

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

>

>

>

> --- In , Judy Thomson
><judygerard.thomson@> wrote:

> >

> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
>Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
>entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
>think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>

>

>

> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just
>away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think
>of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not
>that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put
>on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave
>and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a
>double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim
>Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.

>

> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the
>major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the
>"princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on
>view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about
>the least desirable course of action.

>

> Katy

>

Ah, those pesky details! I am sure I got the letters botched, then ; ) 
but the killer did go under a name quite similar...and was aka several others. We lent out the book, so I don't have it at hand. Good story, regardless, and true, which makes it very creepy. His house, known as The Castle, is long gone, or someone would have turned it into a tourist destination....

Judy


________________________________
From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Crippen


 
Where does Saki come into this ?

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.
>
> (Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)
>
> Judy Chicago
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Crippen
>
>
>  
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, Holmes! Bless you, Stephen! I remembered it was literary...some days one's memory is a jumble of unsorted socks...which is why it's handy to have well-read friends with better memories!

Judy


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Crippen


 
I think she means the US serial killer HH Holmes, who built a castle in a city centre.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Crippen

Where does Saki come into this ?

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.
>
> (Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)
>
> Judy Chicago
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Crippen
>
>
> Â
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

If I ever publish (I shan't hold my breath...think in years, not months), I feel confident I could hire one of you as a fact checker. 

The caveat: I can't afford to pay as much as the job's truly worth, but I would do my best...and the subject matter is, at least, agreeable.

Love,
Judy


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Crippen


 
I think she means the US serial killer HH Holmes, who built a castle in a city centre.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Crippen

Where does Saki come into this ?

Richard G

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.
>
> (Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)
>
> Judy Chicago
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Crippen
>
>
> Â
> If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > mind he was innocent.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Anyone want to join in this debate?????
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/03/in-praise-of-richard-iii?commentpage=all#start-of-comments


----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Well said, Annette.

Judy,
writing from the Colonies; perhaps we'd still be British subjects, if...? Ah, there's food for a novel, surely.

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


One might just as well say that it would have been daft of Edward IV to display the body of Henry VI, but he did it anyway, because it was the obvious way to scotch rebellion in Henry's name. There's a point at which second-guessing and double-second-guessing result in sheer futility, when the best thing is simply to do what everyone expects you to do.

Also I should mention that events didn't quite happen in the sequence suggested here. Henry Tudor did not make any public announcement of his intentions towards Elizabeth of York until Christmas. The implication that the boys were dead came from a rumour circulated some months earlier as part of what's generally called Buckingham's Rebellion, which was quickly stamped out. Contrary to the claims of historians, there are VERY few intimations in contemporaneous records that suggest Richard III did away with Edward IV's sons. Far fewer than you would expect, in fact. They are all listed and analysed in "Maligned King", pp.152-155.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

Alas! I've tried thrice to register...perhaps someone in the UK would do better. I'd intended to cite Annette's book as an excellent alternative to Tey...

Judy
who'll try again later


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
Anyone want to join in this debate?????
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/03/in-praise-of-richard-iii?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Well said, Annette.

Judy,
writing from the Colonies; perhaps we'd still be British subjects, if...? Ah, there's food for a novel, surely.

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

One might just as well say that it would have been daft of Edward IV to display the body of Henry VI, but he did it anyway, because it was the obvious way to scotch rebellion in Henry's name. There's a point at which second-guessing and double-second-guessing result in sheer futility, when the best thing is simply to do what everyone expects you to do.

Also I should mention that events didn't quite happen in the sequence suggested here. Henry Tudor did not make any public announcement of his intentions towards Elizabeth of York until Christmas. The implication that the boys were dead came from a rumour circulated some months earlier as part of what's generally called Buckingham's Rebellion, which was quickly stamped out. Contrary to the claims of historians, there are VERY few intimations in contemporaneous records that suggest Richard III did away with Edward IV's sons. Far fewer than you would expect, in fact. They are all listed and analysed in "Maligned King", pp.152-155.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better sources of DNA than bones.

My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again will be forthcoming in the next reign.

But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely are?

----- Original Message -----
From: Mo Harris <moharris483@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:

> whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> her ancestors,
> the link is very very distant
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> who can be sure?
>
>  
> The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> that with the
> technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> only the Queen
> would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> those of Edward
> IV this would clarify matters.
>
> I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> honest the link
> between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> matters up.  Or
> is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
>
> A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> clarified by DNA
> evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> truth.  Sure if they
> were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> whose hand, but
> we would know if it were them.
>
 

Not too long ago, an article by Egyptologist Zahi Hawass addressed the lineage of King Tut. Forensics now presumably show Tutankhamun was the son of Ahkenaten, and Tut's mother was a sister to that pharaoh, and not the woman traditionally believed to have been mother. Getting beyond the Ick Factor, all this research was probably aided by the availability of soft tissue, which the Egyptians mummified and placed in canopic jars separate from the bodies. The only thing they tossed out were the brains, which they thought pretty useless.

Some days, I think they were right... 

I can't recall whether DNA is or is not easily recoverable from bones, but bones are organs, even as skin is. DNA can even be retrieved from hair. I believe the problem is more related to the quantity of a sample needed after such a long time, since it would be terribly dried out; if you botch the job, you may not get another chance to test.

There's also the question of DNA in general and mitochondrial DNA, which is passed strictly through females to their offspring of either sex. This is the Grail, since it offers a more certain lineal picture. Maybe it's the Mitochondrial that's harder to get from bones?

Judy


________________________________
From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better sources of DNA than bones.

My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again will be forthcoming in the next reign.

But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely are?

----- Original Message -----
From: Mo Harris <moharris483@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:

> whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> her ancestors,
> the link is very very distant
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> who can be sure?
>
>  
> The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> that with the
> technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> only the Queen
> would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> those of Edward
> IV this would clarify matters.
>
> I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> honest the link
> between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> matters up.  Or
> is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
>
> A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> clarified by DNA
> evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> truth.  Sure if they
> were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> whose hand, but
> we would know if it were them.
>
 

A seventeenth century royalist, I think his name was Richard Grenfell, claimed that Oliver Cromwell was descended from "Perkin Warbeck". I think he was trying to make something about a "pretender" being descended from a "pretender".

I know that Cromwell does have Welsh ancestors but I don't know if there is any truth in the story. Cromwell himself never claimed it.

Helen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds good - "Perkin"'s peregrinations from 1487-99 led him to South Wales with his wife (Lady Katherine Gordon) and some sources give them one or more children - see the article a few years ago.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>
> Ooh - my father was Welsh but it was my mother who was a Perkins! They did
> come from the Severn valley area though so maybe that counts? :-)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011 17:27:34
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no
> descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any
> Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of
> Windsor..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marion cheatham
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
> The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the
> technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen
> would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward
> IV this would clarify matters.
>
> I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link
> between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or
> is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
>
> A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA
> evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they
> were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but
> we would know if it were them.
>
> --- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39
>
> love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck
> raking stick?
>
> it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even
> displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and
> had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less
> aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.
>
> there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency
> before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read
> one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he,
> himself died in late august 1483.
>
> i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it
> originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)
>
> tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older
> daughters.
>
> his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister
> cecily.
>
> too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't
> picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be
> reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs
> was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely
> common among the upper crust of society.
>
> tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated
> as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power
> behind the throne.
>
> now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly
> overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would
> have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing
> power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
>
> Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies
> of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his
> killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their
> sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley,
> would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it,
> he's had plenty of over the centuries.
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
> ><judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
> >Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
> >entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
> >think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just
> >away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think
> >of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not
> >that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put
> >on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave
> >and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a
> >double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim
> >Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> >
>
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the
> >major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the
> >"princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on
> >view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about
> >the least desirable course of action.
>
> >
>
> > Katy
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I tried again, w/o success. Sorry, Annette!

Judy


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
Anyone want to join in this debate?????
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/03/in-praise-of-richard-iii?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Well said, Annette.

Judy,
writing from the Colonies; perhaps we'd still be British subjects, if...? Ah, there's food for a novel, surely.

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

One might just as well say that it would have been daft of Edward IV to display the body of Henry VI, but he did it anyway, because it was the obvious way to scotch rebellion in Henry's name. There's a point at which second-guessing and double-second-guessing result in sheer futility, when the best thing is simply to do what everyone expects you to do.

Also I should mention that events didn't quite happen in the sequence suggested here. Henry Tudor did not make any public announcement of his intentions towards Elizabeth of York until Christmas. The implication that the boys were dead came from a rumour circulated some months earlier as part of what's generally called Buckingham's Rebellion, which was quickly stamped out. Contrary to the claims of historians, there are VERY few intimations in contemporaneous records that suggest Richard III did away with Edward IV's sons. Far fewer than you would expect, in fact. They are all listed and analysed in "Maligned King", pp.152-155.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
>
>
> The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
>
> Katy
>

He is descended from one Richard Williams, brother-in-law to Thomas Cromwell. Strangely, Williams' son took the Cromwell surname in the aftermath of Thomas' execution. Richard Williams would have to be Perkin's grandson in terms of the time difference - I have traced the two Cromwell lines (possibly in Files) but never looked at Williams' ancestry.

----- Original Message -----
From: sweethelly2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



A seventeenth century royalist, I think his name was Richard Grenfell, claimed that Oliver Cromwell was descended from "Perkin Warbeck". I think he was trying to make something about a "pretender" being descended from a "pretender".

I know that Cromwell does have Welsh ancestors but I don't know if there is any truth in the story. Cromwell himself never claimed it.

Helen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds good - "Perkin"'s peregrinations from 1487-99 led him to South Wales with his wife (Lady Katherine Gordon) and some sources give them one or more children - see the article a few years ago.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>
> Ooh - my father was Welsh but it was my mother who was a Perkins! They did
> come from the Severn valley area though so maybe that counts? :-)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011 17:27:34
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no
> descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any
> Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of
> Windsor..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marion cheatham
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
> The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the
> technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen
> would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of Edward
> IV this would clarify matters.
>
> I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link
> between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or
> is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
>
> A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by DNA
> evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they
> were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but
> we would know if it were them.
>
> --- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39
>
> love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck
> raking stick?
>
> it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even
> displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and
> had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less
> aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.
>
> there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency
> before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read
> one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he,
> himself died in late august 1483.
>
> i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it
> originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)
>
> tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older
> daughters.
>
> his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister
> cecily.
>
> too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't
> picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be
> reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs
> was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely
> common among the upper crust of society.
>
> tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated
> as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power
> behind the throne.
>
> now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly
> overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would
> have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing
> power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
>
> Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies
> of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his
> killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their
> sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley,
> would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it,
> he's had plenty of over the centuries.
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
> ><judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
> >Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
> >entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
> >think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Ã,
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just
> >away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think
> >of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not
> >that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put
> >on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave
> >and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a
> >double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim
> >Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> >
>
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the
> >major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the
> >"princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on
> >view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about
> >the least desirable course of action.
>
> >
>
> > Katy
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Didn't Thomas bring the boy up after his parents died so presumably he did it in
honour of Thomas and as a (perhaps rather dangerous?) two fingers  up to Fat
Henry?

Things are looking better and better for me - my Dad was a Williams so with that
and my mother being a Perkins, maybe I am the true pretender to the throne of
England?   :-)




________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 July, 2011 9:05:23
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
He is descended from one Richard Williams, brother-in-law to Thomas Cromwell.
Strangely, Williams' son took the Cromwell surname in the aftermath of Thomas'
execution. Richard Williams would have to be Perkin's grandson in terms of the
time difference - I have traced the two Cromwell lines (possibly in Files) but
never looked at Williams' ancestry.

----- Original Message -----
From: sweethelly2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

A seventeenth century royalist, I think his name was Richard Grenfell, claimed
that Oliver Cromwell was descended from "Perkin Warbeck". I think he was trying
to make something about a "pretender" being descended from a "pretender".

I know that Cromwell does have Welsh ancestors but I don't know if there is any
truth in the story. Cromwell himself never claimed it.

Helen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> Sounds good - "Perkin"'s peregrinations from 1487-99 led him to South Wales
>with his wife (Lady Katherine Gordon) and some sources give them one or more
>children - see the article a few years ago.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>
> Ooh - my father was Welsh but it was my mother who was a Perkins! They did
> come from the Severn valley area though so maybe that counts? :-)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011 17:27:34
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
> COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no
> descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any
> Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of
> Windsor..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marion cheatham
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
> The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is that with the
> technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if only the Queen

> would give permission for them to be examined and tested against those of
>Edward
>
> IV this would clarify matters.
>
> I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be honest the link
>
> between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear matters up. Or

> is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
>
> A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was clarified by
>DNA
>
> evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the truth. Sure if they

> were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at whose hand, but
>
> we would know if it were them.
>
> --- On Tue, 5/7/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 3:39
>
> love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same
>muck
>
> raking stick?
>
> it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even

> displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and
>
> had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less

> aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.
>
> there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency
> before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read
>
> one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he,
> himself died in late august 1483.
>
> i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it
> originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)
>
> tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older

> daughters.
>
> his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister
> cecily.
>
> too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't
> picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be
> reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york.
>theirs
>
> was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely
> common among the upper crust of society.
>
> tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated
>
> as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power
>
> behind the throne.
>
> now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly

> overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would
> have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing
> power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
>
> Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies
>
> of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his
> killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their

> sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley,
> would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it,
> he's had plenty of over the centuries.
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
> ><judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the
> >Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to
> >entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I
> >think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Ã,
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just

> >away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think

> >of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not
> >that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is
>put
>
> >on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the
>grave
>
> >and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a
>
> >double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim
> >Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
>
> >
>
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the
> >major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the
> >"princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses
>on
>
> >view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about
>
> >the least desirable course of action.
>
> >
>
> > Katy
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]

I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , Angie Telepenko
<gooble@...> wrote:
>
> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
sources of DNA than bones.
>
> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>
> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
are?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
be sure?
> To:
>
> > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > her ancestors,
> > the link is very very distant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > that with the
> > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > only the Queen
> > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > those of Edward
> > IV this would clarify matters.
> >
> > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > honest the link
> > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > matters up. Or
> > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> >
> > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > clarified by DNA
> > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > truth. Sure if they
> > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > whose hand, but
> > we would know if it were them.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Crippen is a fairly tenuous link also; we could speculate, in the realm of romantic fantasy, about the link between dinosaurs and people. Err in fact the way 15th century so called nobles behaved there may be a very good link.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Where does Saki come into this ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thought: Mrs. Crippen runs off to Chicago...falls for another "doctor"...but this one is HH Munro! So she's cut to bits, after all! Quite the Rod Serling ending.
> >
> > (Read The Devil in the White City...about the Columbian Exposition and a Serial Killer; excellently written)
> >
> > Judy Chicago
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Richard <RSG_Corris@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: Crippen
> >
> >
> >  
> > If Crippen was innocent of murdering his wife, and the remains in the cellar weren't hers, then why didn't she come forward and save him from the hangman ? I know that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but if she was alive she could hardly have been unaware of the case and she would have to have been pretty hard-hearted to let him hang.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like shades of Dr. Crippen. Forensics now reveal
> > > his "wife's" bones are those of a male...after the Ripper failures,
> > > Scotland Yard was under pressure to quickly solve that case. Never
> > > mind he was innocent.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Exactly Joan,
Had either Edward V or his brother been suffering from the disease the bones show it would have been the cause of comment by chroniclers, letter writers, and gossips, and there is not a word anywhere.

Like the tales of Richard murdering his nephews, where there was also not a word until Buckingham's rebellion and we all know who was behind those tales! Step forward super bitch Margaret Beaufort, and evil cardinal to be John Morton.
Paul

On 5 Jul 2011, at 23:23, joanszechtman wrote:

> Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]
>
> I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
> to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
> what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
> that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
> disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
> been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
> came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
> the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
> the 21st-century
> This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book Awards
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786
>
> --- In , Angie Telepenko
> <gooble@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
> want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
> she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
> was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
> sources of DNA than bones.
>>
>> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
> history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
> will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>>
>> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
> may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
> can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
> correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
> not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
> are?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
>> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
>> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
> be sure?
>> To:
>>
>>> whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
>>> her ancestors,
>>> the link is very very distant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
>>> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
>>> who can be sure?
>>>
>>>
>>> The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
>>> that with the
>>> technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
>>> only the Queen
>>> would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
>>> those of Edward
>>> IV this would clarify matters.
>>>
>>> I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
>>> honest the link
>>> between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
>>> matters up. Or
>>> is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
>>>
>>> A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
>>> clarified by DNA
>>> evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
>>> truth. Sure if they
>>> were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
>>> whose hand, but
>>> we would know if it were them.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

As More stated that Edward V was in tears about being deprived of his Woodville relatives, it's been speculated that a jaw disease may've been a problem. DNA evidence would hopefully be definitive.

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]
>
> I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
> to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
> what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
> that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
> disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
> been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
> came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
> the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
> the 21st-century
> This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book Awards
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786
>
> --- In , Angie Telepenko
> <gooble@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
> want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
> she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
> was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
> sources of DNA than bones.
> >
> > My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
> history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
> will be forthcoming in the next reign.
> >
> > But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
> may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
> can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
> correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
> not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
> are?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mo Harris moharris483@
> > Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
> be sure?
> > To:
> >
> > > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > > her ancestors,
> > > the link is very very distant
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > > who can be sure?
> > >
> > >
> > > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > > that with the
> > > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > > only the Queen
> > > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > > those of Edward
> > > IV this would clarify matters.
> > >
> > > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > > honest the link
> > > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > > matters up. Or
> > > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> > >
> > > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > > clarified by DNA
> > > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > > truth. Sure if they
> > > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > > whose hand, but
> > > we would know if it were them.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Quite so, Joan. Young Edward was seen on a daily basis by his councillors and attendants at Ludlow, as well as at state occasions and festivals with his father, plus he was attended by the talkative Dr Argentine who was only too pleased to tell Dominic Mancini about the boy's activities, inclinations and state of mind. As I say in my book, while Mancini was winkling all this good intelligence out of Armstrong, he would have been doing a poor job indeed if he failed to find out that the lad suffered from a chronic disease of the jaw.

True, we do not know precisely how serious was the disease exhibited by the skull in the urn. However, I have cited a number of expert opinions who all have their two-penn'orth to offer, and all of them agree it was visible and chronic. He would certainly have been plagued with abscesses, and already the bone was disfigured. It would have been known to the physicians of the time that a chronic disease of the jaw could eat into and poison the bone marrow and result in an early death. Yet no effort was made to train young Richard of York to take over the reins from his brother, he was kept at his mother's side even after the appointment of his own council, and by 1483 had not been given his own household. Why? Because there was nowt wrong with the heir to the throne.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]

I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , Angie Telepenko
<gooble@...> wrote:
>
> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
sources of DNA than bones.
>
> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>
> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
are?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
be sure?
> To:
>
> > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > her ancestors,
> > the link is very very distant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > that with the
> > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > only the Queen
> > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > those of Edward
> > IV this would clarify matters.
> >
> > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > honest the link
> > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > matters up. Or
> > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> >
> > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > clarified by DNA
> > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > truth. Sure if they
> > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > whose hand, but
> > we would know if it were them.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, I don't get the jump from tears of frustration to a serious disease of the jaw. That's really scraping the barrel.

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



As More stated that Edward V was in tears about being deprived of his Woodville relatives, it's been speculated that a jaw disease may've been a problem. DNA evidence would hopefully be definitive.

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]
>
> I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
> to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
> what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
> that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
> disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
> been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
> came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
> the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
> the 21st-century
> This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book Awards
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786
>
> --- In , Angie Telepenko
> <gooble@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
> want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
> she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
> was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
> sources of DNA than bones.
> >
> > My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
> history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
> will be forthcoming in the next reign.
> >
> > But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
> may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
> can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
> correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
> not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
> are?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mo Harris moharris483@
> > Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
> be sure?
> > To:
> >
> > > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > > her ancestors,
> > > the link is very very distant
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > > who can be sure?
> > >
> > >
> > > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > > that with the
> > > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > > only the Queen
> > > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > > those of Edward
> > > IV this would clarify matters.
> > >
> > > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > > honest the link
> > > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > > matters up. Or
> > > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> > >
> > > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > > clarified by DNA
> > > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > > truth. Sure if they
> > > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > > whose hand, but
> > > we would know if it were them.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

It's possible that Edward V (if we believe that he was a bastard then he never was king surely?) was miserable with Richard: could go along with his view of the Woodville's as greedy and dangerous, because ill, but we don't know. If the bones could be checked for DNA the puzzle would be solved. Tutankhamun and his relatives, from a much earlier period, have been successfully linked through DNA analysis.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't get the jump from tears of frustration to a serious disease of the jaw. That's really scraping the barrel.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: HI
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>
> As More stated that Edward V was in tears about being deprived of his Woodville relatives, it's been speculated that a jaw disease may've been a problem. DNA evidence would hopefully be definitive.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]
> >
> > I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
> > to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
> > what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
> > that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
> > disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
> > been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
> > came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
> > the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
> > the 21st-century
> > This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> > Book Awards
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786
> >
> > --- In , Angie Telepenko
> > <gooble@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
> > want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
> > she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
> > was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
> > sources of DNA than bones.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
> > history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
> > will be forthcoming in the next reign.
> > >
> > > But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
> > may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
> > can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
> > correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
> > not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
> > are?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Mo Harris moharris483@
> > > Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> > > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
> > be sure?
> > > To:
> > >
> > > > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > > > her ancestors,
> > > > the link is very very distant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > > > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > > > who can be sure?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > > > that with the
> > > > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > > > only the Queen
> > > > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > > > those of Edward
> > > > IV this would clarify matters.
> > > >
> > > > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > > > honest the link
> > > > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > > > matters up. Or
> > > > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> > > >
> > > > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > > > clarified by DNA
> > > > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > > > truth. Sure if they
> > > > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > > > whose hand, but
> > > > we would know if it were them.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The difficulty in displaying the princes, presuming Richard had them killed, was that they were children aged 9 and 12: seen as `innocents,' so a certain odium would've attached to Richard had he been so foolish to give apparent evidence that he may've bumped them off. He could've displayed them and blamed Buckingham, whether true or not, but as we don't have clairvoyant powers to read the minds of people long dead, we may never know.

A comment was made about respecting the private lives of people: given the fact that royals have made such a fuss, through primogeniture, of being descended from `royal' blood (is this any different from common blood?) it seems valid to question whether Isabella was under the sheets with a man other than the rampantly gay Edward II, who treated her with extreme contempt at the start of the marriage and given the fact that Katherine Howard (at least one Queen) slept around. Discussing whether a certain person had children murdered is a little on the private side also.

2nd posting.


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> One might just as well say that it would have been daft of Edward IV to display the body of Henry VI, but he did it anyway, because it was the obvious way to scotch rebellion in Henry's name. There's a point at which second-guessing and double-second-guessing result in sheer futility, when the best thing is simply to do what everyone expects you to do.
>
> Also I should mention that events didn't quite happen in the sequence suggested here. Henry Tudor did not make any public announcement of his intentions towards Elizabeth of York until Christmas. The implication that the boys were dead came from a rumour circulated some months earlier as part of what's generally called Buckingham's Rebellion, which was quickly stamped out. Contrary to the claims of historians, there are VERY few intimations in contemporaneous records that suggest Richard III did away with Edward IV's sons. Far fewer than you would expect, in fact. They are all listed and analysed in "Maligned King", pp.152-155.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: HI
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
>
>
>
> Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess....Â
> >
> >
> > The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
> >
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> As More stated that Edward V was in tears about being deprived of his Woodville relatives, it's been speculated that a jaw disease may've been a problem. DNA evidence would hopefully be definitive.
>


When Edward met up with Gloucester at Stony Stratford and was "deprived of" (one could have said "rescued from" just as accurately) his Woodville relatives, Thomas More was five years old and living in London. Even his mentor-to-be, John Morton, was not present at the meeting-up.

More's account doesn't even rise to the credibility level of hearsay...it's like the story of knowing someone who used to play cards with someone whose brother-in-law once saw a flying saucer.

Katy

Thanks for all the posts everyone.  I have enjoyed reading such diverse ideas.  I agree that Prince Charles might be the person to approach in the future regarding the opening of the Urn in Westminster Abbey.

Reading other posts re Perkins/Williams, I am reading a book by Ann Wroe at the moment only halfway through, but am I to understand the Warbeck had more than one child, did he have two sons.  Any information appreciated, I do read alot but not in the same league as some of you.

Any help appreciated.

I love being a part of this forum.

--- On Wed, 6/7/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Wednesday, 6 July, 2011, 15:52







 













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

>

> As More stated that Edward V was in tears about being deprived of his Woodville relatives, it's been speculated that a jaw disease may've been a problem. DNA evidence would hopefully be definitive.

>



When Edward met up with Gloucester at Stony Stratford and was "deprived of" (one could have said "rescued from" just as accurately) his Woodville relatives, Thomas More was five years old and living in London. Even his mentor-to-be, John Morton, was not present at the meeting-up.



More's account doesn't even rise to the credibility level of hearsay...it's like the story of knowing someone who used to play cards with someone whose brother-in-law once saw a flying saucer.



Katy

Hi Marion! Anne Wroe is my bible for all things Perkin, and on pp.266-9 of the paperback you'll find she says he was married in early 1496 (mid-January) and their first child was born in September that year. On p.298 she says the first child was a son, and on the same page suggests that there may have been sons (plural) because Bernard Andre and Andrea Trevisano thought so. Of course nothing was ever heard of them again, but nobody asks about the mystery of Henry VII and Perkin's babes ....
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Thanks for all the posts everyone. I have enjoyed reading such diverse ideas. I agree that Prince Charles might be the person to approach in the future regarding the opening of the Urn in Westminster Abbey.

Reading other posts re Perkins/Williams, I am reading a book by Ann Wroe at the moment only halfway through, but am I to understand the Warbeck had more than one child, did he have two sons. Any information appreciated, I do read alot but not in the same league as some of you.

Any help appreciated.

I love being a part of this forum.

--- On Wed, 6/7/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:
Date: Wednesday, 6 July, 2011, 15:52



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

>

> As More stated that Edward V was in tears about being deprived of his Woodville relatives, it's been speculated that a jaw disease may've been a problem. DNA evidence would hopefully be definitive.

>

When Edward met up with Gloucester at Stony Stratford and was "deprived of" (one could have said "rescued from" just as accurately) his Woodville relatives, Thomas More was five years old and living in London. Even his mentor-to-be, John Morton, was not present at the meeting-up.

More's account doesn't even rise to the credibility level of hearsay...it's like the story of knowing someone who used to play cards with someone whose brother-in-law once saw a flying saucer.

Katy

Not to create more confusion, however: When I originally joined the Society in 1978, I dimly recall my welcome packet included a reproduction from a newspaper...an article about The Jaw. It wasn't a disease per se, they discussed but a congenital condition which had also been seen in the skull of poor little Anne Mowbray. In this condition, dentition tends to be small and immature, and certain molars never grow in.

Would that I'd saved that clipping....

However, the Society Library may still have the materials on file.

Judy 




________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
Quite so, Joan. Young Edward was seen on a daily basis by his councillors and attendants at Ludlow, as well as at state occasions and festivals with his father, plus he was attended by the talkative Dr Argentine who was only too pleased to tell Dominic Mancini about the boy's activities, inclinations and state of mind. As I say in my book, while Mancini was winkling all this good intelligence out of Armstrong, he would have been doing a poor job indeed if he failed to find out that the lad suffered from a chronic disease of the jaw.

True, we do not know precisely how serious was the disease exhibited by the skull in the urn. However, I have cited a number of expert opinions who all have their two-penn'orth to offer, and all of them agree it was visible and chronic. He would certainly have been plagued with abscesses, and already the bone was disfigured. It would have been known to the physicians of the time that a chronic disease of the jaw could eat into and poison the bone marrow and result in an early death. Yet no effort was made to train young Richard of York to take over the reins from his brother, he was kept at his mother's side even after the appointment of his own council, and by 1483 had not been given his own household. Why? Because there was nowt wrong with the heir to the throne.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]

I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , Angie Telepenko
<gooble@...> wrote:
>
> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
sources of DNA than bones.
>
> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>
> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
are?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
be sure?
> To:
>
> > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > her ancestors,
> > the link is very very distant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > that with the
> > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > only the Queen
> > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > those of Edward
> > IV this would clarify matters.
> >
> > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > honest the link
> > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > matters up. Or
> > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> >
> > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > clarified by DNA
> > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > truth. Sure if they
> > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > whose hand, but
> > we would know if it were them.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The difficulty in displaying the princes, presuming Richard had them killed, was that they were children aged 9 and 12: seen as `innocents,' so a certain odium would've attached to Richard had he been so foolish to give apparent evidence that he may've bumped them off. He could've displayed them and blamed Buckingham, whether true or not, but as we don't have clairvoyant powers to read the minds of people long dead, we may never know.

A comment was made about respecting the private lives of people: given the fact that royals have made such a fuss, through primogeniture, of being descended from `royal' blood (is this any different from common blood?) it seems valid to question whether Isabella was under the sheets with a man other than the rampantly gay Edward II, who treated her with extreme contempt at the start of the marriage and given the fact that Katherine Howard (at least one Queen) slept around. Discussing whether a certain person had children murdered is a little on the private side also.


--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> love your email addy hi. are you a cousin to vermeer? do you share the same muck raking stick?
>  
> it was the norm to display the deceased. when bodies were available. they even displayed bones of the deceased if the individual died in a foreign country and had to be shipped home. the bones were defleshed so that they would a lot less aromatic as they travelled 100's to 1000's of miles.
>  
> there is one chronicler in the 16thC that has richard declaring his innocency before the world in jan/feb 1484, regarding the deaths of the boys. i have read one report that louis the spider king believed the boys were dead before he, himself died in late august 1483.
> i have not found the source of this report..yet..and if anyone knows where it originated, i'd sure appreciate the input...:-)
>
> tudor at a christmas festival declared he would marry one of edward iv's older daughters.
> his options for marriage age daughters were elizabeth and her younger sister cecily.
> too many people think the vow to marry was just for elizabeth. henry wasn't picky, he was looking for an "in" with the yorkists. and henry had to be reminded of his vow and basically pushed into marrying elizabeth of york. theirs was not a marriage of love, it was an arranged marriage. this was extremely common among the upper crust of society.
>  
> tudor gained support for his reign via this marriage, and the bride was treated as a second class citizen for the rest of her life. henry's momma was the power behind the throne.
>  
> now there is someone who needs a bit of muck raking done too. often the overly overt pious are often the most devious and dastardly. margaret beaufort would have done machavelli proud with her deceitful manipulations while maintianing power and control. i can still feel her evil even with all the centuries past.
>  
> roslyn
>  
>
> --- On Mon, 7/4/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Personally, I think it would've been daft for Richard III to display the bodies of the princes. It may well have been seen as him producing evidence of his killing them. Henry Tudor was making hay over his claim to want to marry their sister: Elizabeth, implying they were dead, so Richard, like Elvis Presley, would've been `all shook up' by the adverse publicity, which, let's face it, he's had plenty of over the centuries.
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The king most likely rumoured to have escaped may have been Richard the Second; he actually is said to have had a "body double," a feature used to entertaining results by novelist James Branch Cabell in a book entitled (I think) Chivalry. In this, RII goes off with a pretty shepherdess.... 
> >
> >
> > The hopeful story that _________ (fill in the blank) is not dead, he is just away has been applied to just about every major Medieval person you can think of, from King Arthur to Robin Hood, Richard II, Edward II, you name it. (Not that it is confined to the Middle Ages, by any means.) Even if the corpse is put on public view -- the body of Henry Percy (Hotspur) was dragged out of the grave and displayed in an attempt to squelch such rumors -- the story will be that a double was killed, and the real man is in hiding. Playing cards with Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater, no doubt.
> >
> > The need to publicly establish that someone is actually dead is one of the major reasons I believe that Richard III didn't know what had become of the "princes." If he had had them killed, I think he would have put their corpses on view and had a lovely funeral for them. Having them simply disappear was about the least desirable course of action.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You're quite right, there was an interesting phenomenon they were discussing about Anne Mowbray's dentition and that was hypodontia, i.e. congenitally missing teeth. Some hypodontia is common, e.g. wisdom teeth, but some is more unusual, and it was attempted (without success) to find echoes of Anne's hypodontia in the skulls in the urn.
Cheers, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Not to create more confusion, however: When I originally joined the Society in 1978, I dimly recall my welcome packet included a reproduction from a newspaper...an article about The Jaw. It wasn't a disease per se, they discussed but a congenital condition which had also been seen in the skull of poor little Anne Mowbray. In this condition, dentition tends to be small and immature, and certain molars never grow in.

Would that I'd saved that clipping....

However, the Society Library may still have the materials on file.

Judy

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


Quite so, Joan. Young Edward was seen on a daily basis by his councillors and attendants at Ludlow, as well as at state occasions and festivals with his father, plus he was attended by the talkative Dr Argentine who was only too pleased to tell Dominic Mancini about the boy's activities, inclinations and state of mind. As I say in my book, while Mancini was winkling all this good intelligence out of Armstrong, he would have been doing a poor job indeed if he failed to find out that the lad suffered from a chronic disease of the jaw.

True, we do not know precisely how serious was the disease exhibited by the skull in the urn. However, I have cited a number of expert opinions who all have their two-penn'orth to offer, and all of them agree it was visible and chronic. He would certainly have been plagued with abscesses, and already the bone was disfigured. It would have been known to the physicians of the time that a chronic disease of the jaw could eat into and poison the bone marrow and result in an early death. Yet no effort was made to train young Richard of York to take over the reins from his brother, he was kept at his mother's side even after the appointment of his own council, and by 1483 had not been given his own household. Why? Because there was nowt wrong with the heir to the throne.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]

I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , Angie Telepenko
<gooble@...> wrote:
>
> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
sources of DNA than bones.
>
> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>
> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
are?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
be sure?
> To:
>
> > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > her ancestors,
> > the link is very very distant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > that with the
> > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > only the Queen
> > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > those of Edward
> > IV this would clarify matters.
> >
> > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > honest the link
> > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > matters up. Or
> > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> >
> > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > clarified by DNA
> > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > truth. Sure if they
> > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > whose hand, but
> > we would know if it were them.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, so much for my little theory about Mowbrays in the manger : )

Judy


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
You're quite right, there was an interesting phenomenon they were discussing about Anne Mowbray's dentition and that was hypodontia, i.e. congenitally missing teeth. Some hypodontia is common, e.g. wisdom teeth, but some is more unusual, and it was attempted (without success) to find echoes of Anne's hypodontia in the skulls in the urn.
Cheers, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Not to create more confusion, however: When I originally joined the Society in 1978, I dimly recall my welcome packet included a reproduction from a newspaper...an article about The Jaw. It wasn't a disease per se, they discussed but a congenital condition which had also been seen in the skull of poor little Anne Mowbray. In this condition, dentition tends to be small and immature, and certain molars never grow in.

Would that I'd saved that clipping....

However, the Society Library may still have the materials on file.

Judy

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Quite so, Joan. Young Edward was seen on a daily basis by his councillors and attendants at Ludlow, as well as at state occasions and festivals with his father, plus he was attended by the talkative Dr Argentine who was only too pleased to tell Dominic Mancini about the boy's activities, inclinations and state of mind. As I say in my book, while Mancini was winkling all this good intelligence out of Armstrong, he would have been doing a poor job indeed if he failed to find out that the lad suffered from a chronic disease of the jaw.

True, we do not know precisely how serious was the disease exhibited by the skull in the urn. However, I have cited a number of expert opinions who all have their two-penn'orth to offer, and all of them agree it was visible and chronic. He would certainly have been plagued with abscesses, and already the bone was disfigured. It would have been known to the physicians of the time that a chronic disease of the jaw could eat into and poison the bone marrow and result in an early death. Yet no effort was made to train young Richard of York to take over the reins from his brother, he was kept at his mother's side even after the appointment of his own council, and by 1483 had not been given his own household. Why? Because there was nowt wrong with the heir to the throne.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]

I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , Angie Telepenko
<gooble@...> wrote:
>
> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
sources of DNA than bones.
>
> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>
> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
are?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
be sure?
> To:
>
> > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > her ancestors,
> > the link is very very distant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > that with the
> > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > only the Queen
> > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > those of Edward
> > IV this would clarify matters.
> >
> > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > honest the link
> > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > matters up. Or
> > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> >
> > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > clarified by DNA
> > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > truth. Sure if they
> > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > whose hand, but
> > we would know if it were them.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I do recall thinking at the time I read the piece that this sounded like some unfortunate little bodies, related to the Mowbrays - perhaps even "little bastards" from that failing (and sickly) family line - had been dug up and planted at the Tower.

Judy  


________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
Not to create more confusion, however: When I originally joined the Society in 1978, I dimly recall my welcome packet included a reproduction from a newspaper...an article about The Jaw. It wasn't a disease per se, they discussed but a congenital condition which had also been seen in the skull of poor little Anne Mowbray. In this condition, dentition tends to be small and immature, and certain molars never grow in.

Would that I'd saved that clipping....

However, the Society Library may still have the materials on file.

Judy 

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

 
Quite so, Joan. Young Edward was seen on a daily basis by his councillors and attendants at Ludlow, as well as at state occasions and festivals with his father, plus he was attended by the talkative Dr Argentine who was only too pleased to tell Dominic Mancini about the boy's activities, inclinations and state of mind. As I say in my book, while Mancini was winkling all this good intelligence out of Armstrong, he would have been doing a poor job indeed if he failed to find out that the lad suffered from a chronic disease of the jaw.

True, we do not know precisely how serious was the disease exhibited by the skull in the urn. However, I have cited a number of expert opinions who all have their two-penn'orth to offer, and all of them agree it was visible and chronic. He would certainly have been plagued with abscesses, and already the bone was disfigured. It would have been known to the physicians of the time that a chronic disease of the jaw could eat into and poison the bone marrow and result in an early death. Yet no effort was made to train young Richard of York to take over the reins from his brother, he was kept at his mother's side even after the appointment of his own council, and by 1483 had not been given his own household. Why? Because there was nowt wrong with the heir to the throne.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Maybe we don't need no stinking DNA. [:D]

I think that there is enough evidence in what is known about the bones
to say that the diseased jaw does not belong to one of the princes. From
what I could find through my research, there is no contemporary record
that either prince was ailing, let alone that he had a debilitating
disease of the jaw, which that child must have had. From what I have
been able to determine, suggestions that Edward V had a diseased jaw
came after the discovery of the bones. And if that skull wasn't one of
the princes, what are the chances that the other one is?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , Angie Telepenko
<gooble@...> wrote:
>
> I think the Queen is quite conservative in her attitudes and doesn't
want to show disrespect by allowing these bones to be examined, whether
she believes they are her distant greatuncles or not. The Dauphin's DNA
was extracted from a preserved heart - soft tissues are much better
sources of DNA than bones.
>
> My understanding is that the Prince of Wales is a keen student of
history and archaeology, so perhaps permission to open the urn again
will be forthcoming in the next reign.
>
> But to some extent I agree with Annette - with nothing but bones there
may not even be any DNA to test with today's techniques. I think they
can only extract DNA if there is marrow left - I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it could be established that they are
not the princes, but how could it be established that they definitely
are?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris moharris483@...
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:15 am
> Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can
be sure?
> To:
>
> > whats the problem, the queen doesnt know they are the bones of
> > her ancestors,
> > the link is very very distant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, 5 July, 2011 17:11:44
> > Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence
> > who can be sure?
> >
> >
> > The thing that always annoys me with matters re the princes is
> > that with the
> > technology we have today the bones could be ruled in or out, if
> > only the Queen
> > would give permission for them to be examined and tested against
> > those of Edward
> > IV this would clarify matters.
> >
> > I understand she is said to see them as her ancestors but to be
> > honest the link
> > between them and the Windsor is very distant and it would clear
> > matters up. Or
> > is it the fact that entrance to Westminster Abbey might go down....
> >
> > A similar matter re the the dauphin (Marie Antoinettes son) was
> > clarified by DNA
> > evidence so cannot see the reasons for keep holding up the
> > truth. Sure if they
> > were the princes we would not know how and when they died or at
> > whose hand, but
> > we would know if it were them.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have no descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then any Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House of Windsor..

Carol responds:

True. Whoever the bones belong to, whether the so-called princes (one was an uncrowned and deposed king, the other a former prince and duke; both had lost their titles) or a pair of Roman girls or any other possibility, those children would have had no descendants.

However, as someone on this list pointed out, it would also be necessary to examine the DNA of Edward IN (primarily for his Y chromosome) and of Elizabeth Woodville (primarily for her mitochondrial DNA) to prove or disprove the children's identity. And, distant or not, Edward IV and his supposed wife (IMO, the marriage was not legal) are indeed Elizabeth II's ancestors.

Carol, suspecting that it will be ca. 2050 before scientists (hopefully, qualified and objective) examine the bones and test the DNA

Actually, no other DNA would need to be examined if it can be shown that
at least one the remains is female. And as John Ashdown-Hill showed
finding a living maternal descendant of Cecily Neville, one would need
only to find a living maternal descendant of Elizabeth Woodville for the
mtDNA comparison. However, one would still need E4's nucleic DNA to say
if the remains were those of the princes.

I still think that the lack of contemporaneous documentation (from
chroniclers, etc.) that would suggest the E5 suffered from the kind of
bone disease that the jaw shows, is very strong evidence that the
remains are not those of the princes. Would this be sufficient to plant
a strong enough doubt with the crown such that they would then want to
have the DNA analyzed?

Another thought: if there are any extant contemporary portraits of E5,
then maybe we could get a likeness from having a "blind" forensic facial
reconstruction of both skulls.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >
> > COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have
no descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then
any Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House
of Windsor..
>
> Carol responds:
>
> True. Whoever the bones belong to, whether the so-called princes (one
was an uncrowned and deposed king, the other a former prince and duke;
both had lost their titles) or a pair of Roman girls or any other
possibility, those children would have had no descendants.
>
> However, as someone on this list pointed out, it would also be
necessary to examine the DNA of Edward IN (primarily for his Y
chromosome) and of Elizabeth Woodville (primarily for her mitochondrial
DNA) to prove or disprove the children's identity. And, distant or not,
Edward IV and his supposed wife (IMO, the marriage was not legal) are
indeed Elizabeth II's ancestors.
>
> Carol, suspecting that it will be ca. 2050 before scientists
(hopefully, qualified and objective) examine the bones and test the DNA
>

Hi Joan - great minds think alike again! In 2009 I obtained prints from Westminster Abbey taken from Lawrence Tanner's original 1933 photographic plates, which were sent directly to John Ashdown-Hill who already had contacts in the facial reconstruction world. Although he asked all his own contacts, and also some others that he and I found through various universities, they all agreed the views photographed were too few, and the angles unhelpful for 3D.

The next thing I did was to pass the prints to someone who knew a professor of orthodontics (or a lecturer in orthodontics, I forget which) at a leading Scottish teaching institution, who expressed interest in the dentition. He volunteered to investigate whether any additional dental records existed from George Northcroft's 1933 examinations (photographs, X-rays, impressions), but either he lost interest or he wasn't able to trace Northcroft's notes, so that was also a dead end.

Since returning to England I have retrieved the original prints again, and having obtained a few other contacts to try, I don't intend to let it rest there. However, I've got involved in a number of writing projects which have publication deadlines, so they need to come first. But I definitely haven't given up.

Regarding a depiction of Edward V from life, you could try looking at the cover of Professor Hicks's biography of Edward V, where you can see 'a previously unknown portrait discovered in "The Black Book (Garter Register)" '. However, the good professor does not disclose the date of this interesting portrait (I'm a great one for knowing the date, me). It's my understanding that the only contemporaneous depiction of Edward IV's children is the stained glass at Canterbury Cathedral, which Hicks illustrates in black and white, but there are lots of other books containing it in full colour. Whether these stained glass representations bore any relation to the original people is impossible to know, but I'm afraid they definitely weren't portraits in the accepted sense. All the other pictures of Edward V in his book are correctly labelled as imaginary.

When Hicks's book came out in 2003 I was really worried because my MS of "Maligned King" wasn't quite finished and I was worried in case he might have hit on one of my unique little 'things' which I was trying to keep under wraps, i.e. my arguments to support the case I presented that Edward V couldn't possibly have suffered from a chronic jaw disease. Only Bill White (the anatomist from the Museum of London) knew about it and I was sure I could rely on him to keep my secret, but I didn't know Hicks was going to produce this book about Edward V so I was one of the first people to buy it, and I can assure you I read it with great trepidation in case he had figured out the same thing.

You can imagine my relief when I read the opening words of chapter 6, "Edward Prince of Wales was a very good-looking boy", together with effusive praise for his dignity and other outstanding qualities - and there he left it! By the time I'd finished the book I realized that Hicks had never given any consideration to the condition of the jaw of the skull in the urn and whether it correlated with Edward V in real life. In fact I had a little dig at Hicks in my book because he was sooooo equivocal about the bones in the urn - in one place wagging a metaphorical finger at 'those who do not wish to believe' in the face of 'the best medical opinion of the day', and later informing the reader that he himself had yet to be convinced. 'If they are the right bodies,' he adds, 'modern anatomical skills ought to locate their deaths within or beyond the reign - where it already appears certain that they belong'. As I commented: a safe assertion if ever there was one!

Anyway, the quest is not yet abandoned, but it needs more time (and probably more contacts) than I have right now. I hope Society members will think my time meanwhile well spent when they read my article on Henry Wyatt in the September Bulletin (this is the chap that sources all over the internet say was tortured by Richard III personally). Also, let me add right now that since I've been asked to cut it down to 2,000 words, if anyone would like me to email them the complete article with all the quotations from Wyatt family papers intact, they have only to contact me offline. Or, Joan, if you are up for an article of about 3,750 words in the Register .......?! I think a lot of the value of my research lies in the transcription of the original Wyatt papers which have never before been published in their entirety along with a commentary giving exactly what we DO know about Henry and his remarkable career. The Bulletin was willing to chop it into two parts, but it isn't satisfactory that way. For those who don't already know, you can contact me at emailATannettecarson.plus.com, substituting @ for AT.
Just returned from Tewkesbury, which was wonderful. I'll be putting some photos on my Facebook page.
All best, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?



Actually, no other DNA would need to be examined if it can be shown that
at least one the remains is female. And as John Ashdown-Hill showed
finding a living maternal descendant of Cecily Neville, one would need
only to find a living maternal descendant of Elizabeth Woodville for the
mtDNA comparison. However, one would still need E4's nucleic DNA to say
if the remains were those of the princes.

I still think that the lack of contemporaneous documentation (from
chroniclers, etc.) that would suggest the E5 suffered from the kind of
bone disease that the jaw shows, is very strong evidence that the
remains are not those of the princes. Would this be sufficient to plant
a strong enough doubt with the crown such that they would then want to
have the DNA analyzed?

Another thought: if there are any extant contemporary portraits of E5,
then maybe we could get a likeness from having a "blind" forensic facial
reconstruction of both skulls.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >
> > COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have
no descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then
any Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House
of Windsor..
>
> Carol responds:
>
> True. Whoever the bones belong to, whether the so-called princes (one
was an uncrowned and deposed king, the other a former prince and duke;
both had lost their titles) or a pair of Roman girls or any other
possibility, those children would have had no descendants.
>
> However, as someone on this list pointed out, it would also be
necessary to examine the DNA of Edward IN (primarily for his Y
chromosome) and of Elizabeth Woodville (primarily for her mitochondrial
DNA) to prove or disprove the children's identity. And, distant or not,
Edward IV and his supposed wife (IMO, the marriage was not legal) are
indeed Elizabeth II's ancestors.
>
> Carol, suspecting that it will be ca. 2050 before scientists
(hopefully, qualified and objective) examine the bones and test the DNA
>

Dear Annette,

I read your tale with my own heart palpitations, as Prof. Hicks is not above some pretty Murdochian methods, according to friends who've been "scooped" without regard for Professional Courtesy.

Judy


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?


 
Hi Joan - great minds think alike again! In 2009 I obtained prints from Westminster Abbey taken from Lawrence Tanner's original 1933 photographic plates, which were sent directly to John Ashdown-Hill who already had contacts in the facial reconstruction world. Although he asked all his own contacts, and also some others that he and I found through various universities, they all agreed the views photographed were too few, and the angles unhelpful for 3D.

The next thing I did was to pass the prints to someone who knew a professor of orthodontics (or a lecturer in orthodontics, I forget which) at a leading Scottish teaching institution, who expressed interest in the dentition. He volunteered to investigate whether any additional dental records existed from George Northcroft's 1933 examinations (photographs, X-rays, impressions), but either he lost interest or he wasn't able to trace Northcroft's notes, so that was also a dead end.

Since returning to England I have retrieved the original prints again, and having obtained a few other contacts to try, I don't intend to let it rest there. However, I've got involved in a number of writing projects which have publication deadlines, so they need to come first. But I definitely haven't given up.

Regarding a depiction of Edward V from life, you could try looking at the cover of Professor Hicks's biography of Edward V, where you can see 'a previously unknown portrait discovered in "The Black Book (Garter Register)" '. However, the good professor does not disclose the date of this interesting portrait (I'm a great one for knowing the date, me). It's my understanding that the only contemporaneous depiction of Edward IV's children is the stained glass at Canterbury Cathedral, which Hicks illustrates in black and white, but there are lots of other books containing it in full colour. Whether these stained glass representations bore any relation to the original people is impossible to know, but I'm afraid they definitely weren't portraits in the accepted sense. All the other pictures of Edward V in his book are correctly labelled as imaginary.

When Hicks's book came out in 2003 I was really worried because my MS of "Maligned King" wasn't quite finished and I was worried in case he might have hit on one of my unique little 'things' which I was trying to keep under wraps, i.e. my arguments to support the case I presented that Edward V couldn't possibly have suffered from a chronic jaw disease. Only Bill White (the anatomist from the Museum of London) knew about it and I was sure I could rely on him to keep my secret, but I didn't know Hicks was going to produce this book about Edward V so I was one of the first people to buy it, and I can assure you I read it with great trepidation in case he had figured out the same thing.

You can imagine my relief when I read the opening words of chapter 6, "Edward Prince of Wales was a very good-looking boy", together with effusive praise for his dignity and other outstanding qualities - and there he left it! By the time I'd finished the book I realized that Hicks had never given any consideration to the condition of the jaw of the skull in the urn and whether it correlated with Edward V in real life. In fact I had a little dig at Hicks in my book because he was sooooo equivocal about the bones in the urn - in one place wagging a metaphorical finger at 'those who do not wish to believe' in the face of 'the best medical opinion of the day', and later informing the reader that he himself had yet to be convinced. 'If they are the right bodies,' he adds, 'modern anatomical skills ought to locate their deaths within or beyond the reign - where it already appears certain that they belong'. As I commented: a safe assertion if ever there was one!

Anyway, the quest is not yet abandoned, but it needs more time (and probably more contacts) than I have right now. I hope Society members will think my time meanwhile well spent when they read my article on Henry Wyatt in the September Bulletin (this is the chap that sources all over the internet say was tortured by Richard III personally). Also, let me add right now that since I've been asked to cut it down to 2,000 words, if anyone would like me to email them the complete article with all the quotations from Wyatt family papers intact, they have only to contact me offline. Or, Joan, if you are up for an article of about 3,750 words in the Register .......?! I think a lot of the value of my research lies in the transcription of the original Wyatt papers which have never before been published in their entirety along with a commentary giving exactly what we DO know about Henry and his remarkable career. The Bulletin was willing to chop it into two parts,
but it isn't satisfactory that way. For those who don't already know, you can contact me at emailATannettecarson.plus.com, substituting @ for AT.
Just returned from Tewkesbury, which was wonderful. I'll be putting some photos on my Facebook page.
All best, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?

Actually, no other DNA would need to be examined if it can be shown that
at least one the remains is female. And as John Ashdown-Hill showed
finding a living maternal descendant of Cecily Neville, one would need
only to find a living maternal descendant of Elizabeth Woodville for the
mtDNA comparison. However, one would still need E4's nucleic DNA to say
if the remains were those of the princes.

I still think that the lack of contemporaneous documentation (from
chroniclers, etc.) that would suggest the E5 suffered from the kind of
bone disease that the jaw shows, is very strong evidence that the
remains are not those of the princes. Would this be sufficient to plant
a strong enough doubt with the crown such that they would then want to
have the DNA analyzed?

Another thought: if there are any extant contemporary portraits of E5,
then maybe we could get a likeness from having a "blind" forensic facial
reconstruction of both skulls.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786

--- In , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >
> > COLLATERAL ancestors - if the bones were Edward IV's sons, they have
no descendants. If the younger son died elsewhere (eg Tyburn 1499) then
any Welshman surnamed Perkins could be his descendant, but not the House
of Windsor..
>
> Carol responds:
>
> True. Whoever the bones belong to, whether the so-called princes (one
was an uncrowned and deposed king, the other a former prince and duke;
both had lost their titles) or a pair of Roman girls or any other
possibility, those children would have had no descendants.
>
> However, as someone on this list pointed out, it would also be
necessary to examine the DNA of Edward IN (primarily for his Y
chromosome) and of Elizabeth Woodville (primarily for her mitochondrial
DNA) to prove or disprove the children's identity. And, distant or not,
Edward IV and his supposed wife (IMO, the marriage was not legal) are
indeed Elizabeth II's ancestors.
>
> Carol, suspecting that it will be ca. 2050 before scientists
(hopefully, qualified and objective) examine the bones and test the DNA
>

Hi everyone - I'm not all that clever at this Facebook lark, but my pictures taken at Tewkesbury are there now.
Regards, Annette

Love the photos, Annette. I hope to attend some year soon. Joan

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone - I'm not all that clever at this Facebook lark, but my
pictures taken at Tewkesbury are there now.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
>
>

Scientific analysis of the famous bones might yield interesting or even significant results even if no DNA could be obtained. According to a recent article regarding a skeleton discovered near Stonehenge, isotopic analysis can provide information on where an individual came from and even on the sort of diet he or she enjoyed during youth.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2010/0930/Stonehenge-skeleton-Ancient-traveler-died-near-the-famous-monument

Katy

Very interesting. I believe that's what was used to confirm the identity of some medieval skeletons, where it was well documented as to where the person grew up.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Without DNA evidence who can be sure?
To:

>
> Scientific analysis of the famous bones might yield interesting
> or even significant results even if no DNA could be
> obtained.  According to a recent article regarding a
> skeleton discovered near Stonehenge, isotopic analysis can
> provide information on where an individual came from and even on
> the sort of diet he or she enjoyed during youth.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-
> Wires/2010/0930/Stonehenge-skeleton-Ancient-traveler-died-near-
> the-famous-monument
>
> Katy
>
>

I love stuff like this. Still, permission would be needed to examine the
bones for this kind of analysis.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook This Time: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
ebook Loyalty Binds Me: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/61786


--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
> Scientific analysis of the famous bones might yield interesting or
even significant results even if no DNA could be obtained. According to
a recent article regarding a skeleton discovered near Stonehenge,
isotopic analysis can provide information on where an individual came
from and even on the sort of diet he or she enjoyed during youth.
>
>
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2010/0930/Stonehenge\
-skeleton-Ancient-traveler-died-near-the-famous-monument
>
> Katy
>