Dean of Westminster on those bones.
Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-22 09:41:56
The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
"In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II ordered interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11–13 years old and the younger was 7–11 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
"In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II ordered interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11–13 years old and the younger was 7–11 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-22 11:54:18
I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded. We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which I now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
Marion
________________________________
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
"In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II ordered
interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 1113 years old and the younger was 711 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making
identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
Marion
________________________________
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
"In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II ordered
interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 1113 years old and the younger was 711 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making
identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-23 15:27:09
I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty attitude to her alleged relatives.
If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs have been investigated in every conceivable way.
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded. We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which I now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>
> Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
> Â
>
> The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
>
> "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II ordered
> interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13 years old and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making
> identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
>
>
>
>
>
>
If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs have been investigated in every conceivable way.
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded. We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which I now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>
> Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
> Â
>
> The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
>
> "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II ordered
> interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13 years old and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making
> identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-23 16:08:49
according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to the murder of his nephews.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
--- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
To:
Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty attitude to her alleged relatives.
If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs have been investigated in every conceivable way.
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded. We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which I now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>
> Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
> Â
>
> The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
>
> "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II
ordered
> interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making
> identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
--- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
To:
Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty attitude to her alleged relatives.
If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs have been investigated in every conceivable way.
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded. We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which I now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>
> Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
> Â
>
> The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th century:
>
> "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves, then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn, which Charles II
ordered
> interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than nine, making
> identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex, has not so far been attempted."
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 01:31:09
My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
Middleham.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> the murder of his nephews.
>
>
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>
> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>
> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> To:
> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>
>
>
>
> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>
> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>
> --- In , marion cheatham
> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee.ý I am
> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.ý
> We live in hope.ý If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> cannot prove who killed or buried them.ý If they are not, we cannot look
> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> Iý now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise).ý I also do not
> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> undoing.ý If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> century:
> >
> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> which Charles II
> ordered
> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11ýý"13 years old
> and the younger was 7ýý"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> nine, making
> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> has not so far been attempted."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
Middleham.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> the murder of his nephews.
>
>
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>
> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>
> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> To:
> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>
>
>
>
> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>
> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>
> --- In , marion cheatham
> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee.ý I am
> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.ý
> We live in hope.ý If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> cannot prove who killed or buried them.ý If they are not, we cannot look
> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> Iý now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise).ý I also do not
> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> undoing.ý If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> century:
> >
> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> which Charles II
> ordered
> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11ýý"13 years old
> and the younger was 7ýý"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> nine, making
> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> has not so far been attempted."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 02:17:12
How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham? The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
>Middleham.
>
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
>> the murder of his nephews.
>>
>>
>> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>>
>> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>>
>> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> To:
>> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>>
>> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
>> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
>> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
>> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
>> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
>> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
>> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
>> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>>
>> --- In , marion cheatham
>> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
>> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
>> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
>> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
>> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
>> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
>> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
>> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
>> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
>> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> >
>> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
>> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>> >
>> > Marion
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> >
>> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
>> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
>> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
>> century:
>> >
>> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
>> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
>> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
>> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
>> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
>> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
>> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
>> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
>> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
>> which Charles II
>> ordered
>> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
>> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
>> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
>> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
>> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
>> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
>> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
>> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
>> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
>> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> nine, making
>> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
>> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
>> has not so far been attempted."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
>Middleham.
>
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
>> the murder of his nephews.
>>
>>
>> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>>
>> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>>
>> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> To:
>> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>>
>> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
>> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
>> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
>> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
>> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
>> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
>> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
>> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>>
>> --- In , marion cheatham
>> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
>> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
>> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
>> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
>> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
>> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
>> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
>> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
>> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
>> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> >
>> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
>> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>> >
>> > Marion
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> >
>> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
>> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
>> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
>> century:
>> >
>> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
>> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
>> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
>> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
>> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
>> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
>> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
>> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
>> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
>> which Charles II
>> ordered
>> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
>> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
>> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
>> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
>> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
>> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
>> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
>> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
>> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
>> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> nine, making
>> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
>> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
>> has not so far been attempted."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 04:43:32
Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
> How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham? The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >
> >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> >Middleham.
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> >> the murder of his nephews.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >>
> >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >>
> >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> To:
> >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >>
> >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >>
> >> --- In , marion cheatham
> >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> >> >
> >> > Marion
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> >> > To:
> >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Â
> >> >
> >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> >> century:
> >> >
> >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> >> which Charles II
> >> ordered
> >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> >> nine, making
> >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
> How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham? The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >
> >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> >Middleham.
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> >> the murder of his nephews.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >>
> >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >>
> >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> To:
> >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >>
> >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >>
> >> --- In , marion cheatham
> >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> >> >
> >> > Marion
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> >> > To:
> >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Â
> >> >
> >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> >> century:
> >> >
> >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> >> which Charles II
> >> ordered
> >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> >> nine, making
> >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 04:49:59
I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
tagged 'evil'.
Karen
From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die
before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been
why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >
> >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> >Middleham.
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> >> the murder of his nephews.
> >>
> >>
> >>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >>
> >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >>
> >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
wrote:
> >>
> >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >>
> >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> >> >
> >> > Marion
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Â
> >> >
> >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> >> century:
> >> >
> >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> >> which Charles II
> >> ordered
> >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> >> nine, making
> >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
tagged 'evil'.
Karen
From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die
before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been
why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >
> >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> >Middleham.
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> >> the murder of his nephews.
> >>
> >>
> >>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >>
> >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >>
> >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
wrote:
> >>
> >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >>
> >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> >> >
> >> > Marion
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Â
> >> >
> >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> >> century:
> >> >
> >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> >> which Charles II
> >> ordered
> >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> >> nine, making
> >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 05:01:08
What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> tagged 'evil'.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die
> before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been
> why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> > >
> > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> > >Middleham.
> > >
> > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > >>
> > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > >>
> > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > >> bones.
> > >> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > >>
> > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> > >> >
> > >> > Marion
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > >> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Â
> > >> >
> > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> > >> century:
> > >> >
> > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> > >> which Charles II
> > >> ordered
> > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > >> nine, making
> > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (8)
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only,
On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> tagged 'evil'.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did die
> before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have been
> why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> > >
> > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> > >Middleham.
> > >
> > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > >>
> > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > >>
> > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > >> bones.
> > >> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > >>
> > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it was
> > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham saddled
> > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would anyone
> > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the throne
> > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been his
> > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> > >> >
> > >> > Marion
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > >> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Â
> > >> >
> > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where one
> > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one of
> > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late 15th
> > >> century:
> > >> >
> > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the original
> > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere. Graves,
> > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> > >> which Charles II
> > >> ordered
> > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > >> nine, making
> > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which remain
> > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the sex,
> > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (8)
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only,
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 05:57:51
Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
Karen
From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> tagged 'evil'.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
die
> before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
been
> why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
> > >
> > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> > >Middleham.
> > >
> > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > >>
> > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > >>
> > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > >> bones.
> > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > >>
> > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
was
> > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
saddled
> > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
anyone
> > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
throne
> > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
his
> > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> > >> >
> > >> > Marion
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Â
> > >> >
> > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
one
> > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one
of
> > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
15th
> > >> century:
> > >> >
> > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
original
> > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
Graves,
> > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> > >> which Charles II
> > >> ordered
> > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > >> nine, making
> > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
remain
> > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
sex,
> > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (8)
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only,
blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
Karen
From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> tagged 'evil'.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
die
> before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
been
> why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
> > >
> > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> > >Middleham.
> > >
> > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > >>
> > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > >>
> > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > >> bones.
> > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > >>
> > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
was
> > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
saddled
> > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
anyone
> > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
throne
> > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
his
> > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> > >> >
> > >> > Marion
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Â
> > >> >
> > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
one
> > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one
of
> > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
15th
> > >> century:
> > >> >
> > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
original
> > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
Graves,
> > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> > >> which Charles II
> > >> ordered
> > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > >> nine, making
> > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
remain
> > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
sex,
> > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (8)
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only,
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 06:18:34
I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> > tagged 'evil'.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > bones.
> >
> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >
> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
> die
> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
> been
> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > > >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >
> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> > > >Middleham.
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > > >>
> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > > >> bones.
> > > >> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > > >>
> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
> was
> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> saddled
> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> anyone
> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> throne
> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
> his
> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Marion
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > > >> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Â
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
> one
> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one
> of
> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
> 15th
> > > >> century:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> original
> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> Graves,
> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> > > >> which Charles II
> > > >> ordered
> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > > >> nine, making
> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> remain
> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
> sex,
> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > Messages in this topic (8)
> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> > Visit Your Group
> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> > tagged 'evil'.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > bones.
> >
> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >
> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
> die
> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
> been
> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > > >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >
> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
> > > >Middleham.
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > > >>
> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > > >> bones.
> > > >> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > > >>
> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
> was
> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> saddled
> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> anyone
> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> throne
> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
> his
> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Marion
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > > >> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Â
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
> one
> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one
> of
> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
> 15th
> > > >> century:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> original
> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> Graves,
> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
> > > >> which Charles II
> > > >> ordered
> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > > >> nine, making
> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> remain
> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
> sex,
> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > Messages in this topic (8)
> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> > Visit Your Group
> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 07:05:56
Not a problem, Jeff.
Karen
From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> > tagged 'evil'.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > bones.
> >
> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >
> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
> die
> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
> been
> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >
> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
of
> > > >Middleham.
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
to
> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > > >>
> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > > >> bones.
> > > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > > >>
> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
> was
> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> saddled
> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> anyone
> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> throne
> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
and
> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
with
> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
pharaohs
> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
permission
> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
persuaded.Â
> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
look
> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
(which
> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
and
> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
done
> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do
not
> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
> his
> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
historical
> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
used.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Marion
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Â
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
> one
> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
one
> of
> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
> 15th
> > > >> century:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
the
> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
wood
> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
a
> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
but
> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> original
> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> Graves,
> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
One
> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
velvet
> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
urn,
> > > >> which Charles II
> > > >> ordered
> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
The
> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
to
> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
bones.
> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
the
> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
smaller
> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
photographs
> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years
old
> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
to
> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
the
> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > > >> nine, making
> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> remain
> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
> sex,
> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > Messages in this topic (8)
> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> > Visit Your Group
> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Karen
From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
>
> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> > tagged 'evil'.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > bones.
> >
> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >
> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
> die
> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
> been
> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
<mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >
> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
of
> > > >Middleham.
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
to
> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> > > >>
> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> > > >> bones.
> > > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> > > >>
> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
> was
> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> saddled
> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> anyone
> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> throne
> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
and
> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
with
> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
pharaohs
> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
permission
> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
persuaded.Â
> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
look
> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
(which
> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
and
> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
done
> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do
not
> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
> his
> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
historical
> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
used.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Marion
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> > > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> bones.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Â
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
> one
> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
one
> of
> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
> 15th
> > > >> century:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
the
> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
wood
> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
a
> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
but
> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> original
> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> Graves,
> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
One
> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
velvet
> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
urn,
> > > >> which Charles II
> > > >> ordered
> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
The
> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
to
> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
bones.
> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
the
> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
smaller
> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
photographs
> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years
old
> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
to
> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
the
> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> > > >> nine, making
> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> remain
> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
> sex,
> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > Messages in this topic (8)
> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> > Visit Your Group
> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 08:33:51
I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported (Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how far she was prepared to go.
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>Not a problem, Jeff.
>
>Karen
>
>From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>Reply-To: <>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>To: ""
><>
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>bones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>
>On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
>> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>>
>> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
>> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
>> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
>> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> > To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > bones.
>> >
>> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >
>> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
>> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
>> die
>> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
>> been
>> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
>> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> > > Sheffe
>> > >
>> > > >________________________________
>> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > > >To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >
>> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
>of
>> > > >Middleham.
>> > > >
>> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> **
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
>to
>> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> >
>>
>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
>> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> > > >>
>> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > > >> bones.
>> > > >> To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
>> was
>> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> saddled
>> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> anyone
>> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> throne
>> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
>and
>> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
>with
>> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>pharaohs
>> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>permission
>> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
>> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>persuaded.Â
>> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
>look
>> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>(which
>> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
>and
>> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
>done
>> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do
>not
>> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
>> his
>> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>historical
>> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>used.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Marion
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > ________________________________
>> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> > > >> > To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Â
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
>> one
>> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
>one
>> of
>> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
>> 15th
>> > > >> century:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
>the
>> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>wood
>> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
>a
>> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
>but
>> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> original
>> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> Graves,
>> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
>One
>> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>velvet
>> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>urn,
>> > > >> which Charles II
>> > > >> ordered
>> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
>The
>> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
>to
>> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>bones.
>> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
>the
>> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>smaller
>> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>photographs
>> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years
>old
>> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
>to
>> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
>the
>> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> > > >> nine, making
>> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> remain
>> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
>> sex,
>> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> > Visit Your Group
>> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>Not a problem, Jeff.
>
>Karen
>
>From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>Reply-To: <>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>To: ""
><>
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>bones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>
>On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
>> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>>
>> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
>> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
>> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
>> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> > To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > bones.
>> >
>> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >
>> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
>> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
>> die
>> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
>> been
>> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
>> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> > > Sheffe
>> > >
>> > > >________________________________
>> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > > >To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >
>> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
>of
>> > > >Middleham.
>> > > >
>> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> **
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
>to
>> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> >
>>
>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
>> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> > > >>
>> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > > >> bones.
>> > > >> To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
>> was
>> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> saddled
>> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> anyone
>> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> throne
>> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
>and
>> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
>with
>> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>pharaohs
>> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>permission
>> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
>> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>persuaded.Â
>> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
>look
>> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>(which
>> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
>and
>> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
>done
>> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do
>not
>> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
>> his
>> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>historical
>> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>used.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Marion
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > ________________________________
>> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> > > >> > To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Â
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
>> one
>> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
>one
>> of
>> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
>> 15th
>> > > >> century:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
>the
>> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>wood
>> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
>a
>> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
>but
>> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> original
>> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> Graves,
>> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
>One
>> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>velvet
>> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>urn,
>> > > >> which Charles II
>> > > >> ordered
>> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
>The
>> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
>to
>> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>bones.
>> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
>the
>> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>smaller
>> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>photographs
>> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years
>old
>> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
>to
>> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
>the
>> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> > > >> nine, making
>> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> remain
>> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
>> sex,
>> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> > Visit Your Group
>> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 14:20:35
Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way of Henry becoming King were dead.
I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given control over his wife's estate.
Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty we need to look at all the evidence out there.
--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported (Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how far she was prepared to go.
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> >Not a problem, Jeff.
> >
> >Karen
> >
> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> >Reply-To: <>
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
> >To: ""
> ><>
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >bones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
> >
> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >
> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> Reply-To: <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> >> To: "
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >>
> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
> >>
> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> >> > tagged 'evil'.
> >> >
> >> > Karen
> >> >
> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > Reply-To: <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> >> > To: "
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> > <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> > bones.
> >> >
> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >> >
> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
> >> die
> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
> >> been
> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> >> > > Sheffe
> >> > >
> >> > > >________________________________
> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > > >To:
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
> >of
> >> > > >Middleham.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> **
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
> >to
> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> >
> >>
> >http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> > > >> bones.
> >> > > >> To:
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
> >> was
> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> >> saddled
> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> >> anyone
> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> >> throne
> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
> >and
> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
> >with
> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
> >pharaohs
> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- In
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
> >permission
> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
> >persuaded.Â
> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
> >look
> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
> >(which
> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
> >and
> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
> >done
> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do
> >not
> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
> >> his
> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
> >historical
> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
> >used.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Marion
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > ________________________________
> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
> >> > > >> > To:
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Â
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
> >> one
> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
> >one
> >> of
> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
> >> 15th
> >> > > >> century:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
> >the
> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
> >wood
> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
> >a
> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
> >but
> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> >> original
> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> >> Graves,
> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
> >One
> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
> >velvet
> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
> >urn,
> >> > > >> which Charles II
> >> > > >> ordered
> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
> >The
> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
> >to
> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
> >bones.
> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
> >the
> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
> >smaller
> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
> >photographs
> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13 years
> >old
> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
> >to
> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
> >the
> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> >> > > >> nine, making
> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> >> remain
> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
> >> sex,
> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> >> > Visit Your Group
> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given control over his wife's estate.
Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty we need to look at all the evidence out there.
--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported (Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how far she was prepared to go.
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> >Not a problem, Jeff.
> >
> >Karen
> >
> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> >Reply-To: <>
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
> >To: ""
> ><>
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >bones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
> >
> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >
> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> Reply-To: <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> >> To: "
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >>
> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
> >>
> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> >> > tagged 'evil'.
> >> >
> >> > Karen
> >> >
> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > Reply-To: <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> >> > To: "
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> > <
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> > bones.
> >> >
> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >> >
> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
> >> die
> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
> >> been
> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> >> > > Sheffe
> >> > >
> >> > > >________________________________
> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > > >To:
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
> >of
> >> > > >Middleham.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> **
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
> >to
> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> >
> >>
> >http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> > > >> bones.
> >> > > >> To:
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
> >> was
> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> >> saddled
> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> >> anyone
> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> >> throne
> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
> >and
> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
> >with
> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
> >pharaohs
> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- In
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
> >permission
> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
> >persuaded.Â
> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
> >look
> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
> >(which
> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
> >and
> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
> >done
> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do
> >not
> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
> >> his
> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
> >historical
> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
> >used.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Marion
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > ________________________________
> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
> >> > > >> > To:
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Â
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
> >> one
> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
> >one
> >> of
> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
> >> 15th
> >> > > >> century:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
> >the
> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
> >wood
> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
> >a
> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
> >but
> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> >> original
> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> >> Graves,
> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
> >One
> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
> >velvet
> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
> >urn,
> >> > > >> which Charles II
> >> > > >> ordered
> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
> >The
> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
> >to
> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
> >bones.
> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
> >the
> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
> >smaller
> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
> >photographs
> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13 years
> >old
> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
> >to
> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
> >the
> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
> >> > > >> nine, making
> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> >> remain
> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
> >> sex,
> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> >> > Visit Your Group
> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 14:44:25
Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
Karen
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:19:44 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and
a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way
of Henry becoming King were dead.
I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I
started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of
Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing
the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too
appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure
that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the
control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always
seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given
control over his wife's estate.
Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference
suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of
Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a
lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for
Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty
we need to look at all the evidence out there.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Annette Carson
<email@...> wrote:
>
> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported
(Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have
been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke
it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore
Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In
brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war
purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how
far she was prepared to go.
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> >Not a problem, Jeff.
> >
> >Karen
> >
> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> >Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
> >To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> ><
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >bones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
> >
> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >
> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> >> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >>
> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
> >>
> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests
that
> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on
the
> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily
Nevill
> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> >> > tagged 'evil'.
> >> >
> >> > Karen
> >> >
> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> >> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> > bones.
> >> >
> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >> >
> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of
Middleham?
> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility,
did
> >> die
> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could
have
> >> been
> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have
allowed
> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> >> > > Sheffe
> >> > >
> >> > > >________________________________
> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned
Edward
> >of
> >> > > >Middleham.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> **
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with
regard
> >to
> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> >
> >>
>
>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed
_
> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on
those
> >> > > >> bones.
> >> > > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't
have
> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided
it
> >> was
> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> >> saddled
> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> >> anyone
> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to
have
> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family
and
> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that
I
> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> >> throne
> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry
VII
> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good
one
> >and
> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
> >with
> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
> >pharaohs
> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
> >permission
> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative,
well
> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I
am
> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
> >persuaded.Â
> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it,
we
> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
> >look
> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
> >(which
> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a
criminal
> >and
> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
> >done
> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also
do
> >not
> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have
been
> >> his
> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see
him?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
> >historical
> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
> >used.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Marion
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > ________________________________
> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
> >> > > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Â
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a
further
> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location
where
> >> one
> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
> >one
> >> of
> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the
late
> >> 15th
> >> > > >> century:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed
to
> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
> >the
> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
> >wood
> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The
bones
> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered
from
> >a
> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
> >but
> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> >> original
> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later
claim
> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> >> Graves,
> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet
deep.
> >One
> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
> >velvet
> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
> >urn,
> >> > > >> which Charles II
> >> > > >> ordered
> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
> >The
> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for
reasons
> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones
were
> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were
found
> >to
> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
> >bones.
> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
> >the
> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
> >smaller
> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones
had
> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
> >photographs
> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13
years
> >old
> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that
time
> >to
> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
> >the
> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger
than
> >> > > >> nine, making
> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> >> remain
> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine
the
> >> sex,
> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> >> > Visit Your Group
> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
Karen
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:19:44 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and
a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way
of Henry becoming King were dead.
I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I
started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of
Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing
the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too
appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure
that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the
control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always
seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given
control over his wife's estate.
Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference
suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of
Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a
lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for
Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty
we need to look at all the evidence out there.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Annette Carson
<email@...> wrote:
>
> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported
(Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have
been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke
it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore
Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In
brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war
purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how
far she was prepared to go.
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> >Not a problem, Jeff.
> >
> >Karen
> >
> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
> >Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
> >To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> ><
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >bones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
> >
> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >
> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
> >> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >>
> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
> >>
> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests
that
> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on
the
> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily
Nevill
> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
> >> > tagged 'evil'.
> >> >
> >> > Karen
> >> >
> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
> >> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> > bones.
> >> >
> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
> >> >
> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of
Middleham?
> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility,
did
> >> die
> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could
have
> >> been
> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have
allowed
> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
> >> > > Sheffe
> >> > >
> >> > > >________________________________
> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
> >> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned
Edward
> >of
> >> > > >Middleham.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> **
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with
regard
> >to
> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> >
> >>
>
>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed
_
> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on
those
> >> > > >> bones.
> >> > > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't
have
> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided
it
> >> was
> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
> >> saddled
> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
> >> anyone
> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to
have
> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family
and
> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that
I
> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
> >> throne
> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry
VII
> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good
one
> >and
> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
> >with
> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
> >pharaohs
> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
> >permission
> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative,
well
> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I
am
> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
> >persuaded.Â
> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it,
we
> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
> >look
> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
> >(which
> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a
criminal
> >and
> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
> >done
> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also
do
> >not
> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have
been
> >> his
> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see
him?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
> >historical
> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
> >used.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Marion
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > ________________________________
> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
> >> > > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
> >> bones.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Â
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a
further
> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location
where
> >> one
> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
> >one
> >> of
> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the
late
> >> 15th
> >> > > >> century:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed
to
> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
> >the
> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
> >wood
> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The
bones
> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered
from
> >a
> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
> >but
> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
> >> original
> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later
claim
> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
> >> Graves,
> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet
deep.
> >One
> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
> >velvet
> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
> >urn,
> >> > > >> which Charles II
> >> > > >> ordered
> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
> >The
> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for
reasons
> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones
were
> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were
found
> >to
> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
> >bones.
> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
> >the
> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
> >smaller
> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones
had
> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
> >photographs
> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13
years
> >old
> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that
time
> >to
> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
> >the
> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger
than
> >> > > >> nine, making
> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
> >> remain
> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine
the
> >> sex,
> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
> >> > Visit Your Group
> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 16:35:07
I don't disagree with the main thrust of your argument, Karen, but Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury was executed by Henry VIII for far less than the treasons Margaret Beaufort committed - I mean the ones we know about - and I think some people wish Richard had been a bit more like his lovely great-nephew, the much idolised Harry.
Of course, no Plantagenet ever executed a woman for political reasons - with the arguable exception of King John and Maud de Breos -although Edward I certainly abused a fair few, particularly the Scottish ones. I doubt Richard would have dreamed of breaking this particular record, and in any event he was probably concerned about the impact on the Stanleys had he been any harsher.
As to Margaret going around bumping off all and sundry that stood between her beloved son and the crown - well, colour me sceptic. She undoubtedly had the motive, but it seems a tad far-fetched to me.
Brian W.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
> possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
> behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
> find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
> seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
> Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
> gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
> got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
> historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
> wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
> others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
> in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
> regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
> Karen
>
>
Of course, no Plantagenet ever executed a woman for political reasons - with the arguable exception of King John and Maud de Breos -although Edward I certainly abused a fair few, particularly the Scottish ones. I doubt Richard would have dreamed of breaking this particular record, and in any event he was probably concerned about the impact on the Stanleys had he been any harsher.
As to Margaret going around bumping off all and sundry that stood between her beloved son and the crown - well, colour me sceptic. She undoubtedly had the motive, but it seems a tad far-fetched to me.
Brian W.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
> possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
> behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
> find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
> seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
> Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
> gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
> got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
> historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
> wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
> others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
> in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
> regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
> Karen
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 16:43:44
That's an argument I've actually heard, Brian, that Richard should have
executed Margaret B because Henry VIII executed Margaret P! Time might not
be entirely linear, but inspiration doesn't tend to work backwards. 'Richard
III should have been more like Henry VIII' is a concept that makes my mind
boggle.
Karen
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:12:07 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
I don't disagree with the main thrust of your argument, Karen, but Margaret
Pole, Countess of Salisbury was executed by Henry VIII for far less than the
treasons Margaret Beaufort committed - I mean the ones we know about - and I
think some people wish Richard had been a bit more like his lovely
great-nephew, the much idolised Harry.
Of course, no Plantagenet ever executed a woman for political reasons - with
the arguable exception of King John and Maud de Breos -although Edward I
certainly abused a fair few, particularly the Scottish ones. I doubt Richard
would have dreamed of breaking this particular record, and in any event he
was probably concerned about the impact on the Stanleys had he been any
harsher.
As to Margaret going around bumping off all and sundry that stood between
her beloved son and the crown - well, colour me sceptic. She undoubtedly had
the motive, but it seems a tad far-fetched to me.
Brian W.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
> possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
> behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
> find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
> seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
> Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
> gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
> got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
> historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
> wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
> others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
> in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
> regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
> Karen
>
>
executed Margaret B because Henry VIII executed Margaret P! Time might not
be entirely linear, but inspiration doesn't tend to work backwards. 'Richard
III should have been more like Henry VIII' is a concept that makes my mind
boggle.
Karen
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:12:07 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
I don't disagree with the main thrust of your argument, Karen, but Margaret
Pole, Countess of Salisbury was executed by Henry VIII for far less than the
treasons Margaret Beaufort committed - I mean the ones we know about - and I
think some people wish Richard had been a bit more like his lovely
great-nephew, the much idolised Harry.
Of course, no Plantagenet ever executed a woman for political reasons - with
the arguable exception of King John and Maud de Breos -although Edward I
certainly abused a fair few, particularly the Scottish ones. I doubt Richard
would have dreamed of breaking this particular record, and in any event he
was probably concerned about the impact on the Stanleys had he been any
harsher.
As to Margaret going around bumping off all and sundry that stood between
her beloved son and the crown - well, colour me sceptic. She undoubtedly had
the motive, but it seems a tad far-fetched to me.
Brian W.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
> possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
> behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
> find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
> seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
> Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
> gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
> got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
> historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
> wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
> others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
> in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
> regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
> Karen
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 22:10:58
For the record, I did not intend my answer to you to come off as an attack, Jeff. I'm sorry if it came out that way. Maybe the speculation would be more fruitful if we see someone paying a member of Edward's household to poison him? Just saying.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
>
>I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>
>On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> To: ""
>> <>
>> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>>
>> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
>> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
>> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
>> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > Reply-To: <
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> > To: "
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > bones.
>> >
>> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >
>> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
>> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
>> die
>> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
>> been
>> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
>> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> > > Sheffe
>> > >
>> > > >________________________________
>> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > > >To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >
>> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
>> > > >Middleham.
>> > > >
>> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> **
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
>> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> >
>> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
>> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> > > >>
>> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > > >> bones.
>> > > >> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
>> was
>> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> saddled
>> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> anyone
>> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> throne
>> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
>> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
>> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
>> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
>> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
>> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
>> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
>> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
>> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
>> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
>> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
>> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
>> his
>> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
>> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Marion
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > ________________________________
>> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> > > >> > To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Â
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
>> one
>> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one
>> of
>> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
>> 15th
>> > > >> century:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
>> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
>> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
>> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
>> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> original
>> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> Graves,
>> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
>> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
>> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
>> > > >> which Charles II
>> > > >> ordered
>> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
>> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
>> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
>> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
>> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
>> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
>> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
>> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
>> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
>> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> > > >> nine, making
>> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> remain
>> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
>> sex,
>> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> > Visit Your Group
>> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
>
>I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>
>On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians that's why I care.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> To: ""
>> <>
>> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>>
>> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm wondering& is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
>> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
>> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
>> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > Reply-To: <
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> > To: "
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > bones.
>> >
>> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >
>> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
>> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
>> die
>> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
>> been
>> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
>> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> > > Sheffe
>> > >
>> > > >________________________________
>> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> > > >To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >
>> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward of
>> > > >Middleham.
>> > > >
>> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> **
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard to
>> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> >
>> http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
>> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> > > >>
>> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> > > >> bones.
>> > > >> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
>> was
>> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> saddled
>> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> anyone
>> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> throne
>> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one and
>> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot with
>> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The pharaohs
>> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission
>> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I am
>> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be persuaded.Â
>> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot look
>> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true (which
>> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal and
>> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have done
>> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also do not
>> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
>> his
>> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a historical
>> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be used.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Marion
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > ________________________________
>> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>> > > >> > To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> bones.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Â
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
>> one
>> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with one
>> of
>> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
>> 15th
>> > > >> century:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since the
>> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of wood
>> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from a
>> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower, but
>> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> original
>> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> Graves,
>> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep. One
>> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and velvet
>> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an urn,
>> > > >> which Charles II
>> > > >> ordered
>> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel. The
>> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found to
>> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones.
>> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the
>> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller
>> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of photographs
>> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â¬"13 years old
>> > > >> and the younger was 7â¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time to
>> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that the
>> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> > > >> nine, making
>> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> remain
>> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
>> sex,
>> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> > Visit Your Group
>> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-24 22:24:56
And there are always those folks who want to do a favor for someone they figure is the "up and coming" main power node. " Won't someone help me with that meddlesome [fill in the blank]" sort of idea, and many "wanna-bes" happy to help.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:19 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
>
>Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way of Henry becoming King were dead.
>
>I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given control over his wife's estate.
>
>Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty we need to look at all the evidence out there.
>
>--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported (Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how far she was prepared to go.
>> Regards, Annette
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>>
>> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a problem, Jeff.
>> >
>> >Karen
>> >
>> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> >Reply-To: <>
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>> >To: ""
>> ><>
>> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >bones.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>> >
>> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â¬" that's why I care.
>> >>
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> Reply-To: <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> >> To: "
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >>
>> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm wondering⬦ is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
>> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
>> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
>> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> >> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Karen
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > Reply-To: <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> >> > To: "
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> > <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > bones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
>> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
>> >> die
>> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
>> >> been
>> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
>> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> >> > > Sheffe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >________________________________
>> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > > >To:
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
>> >of
>> >> > > >Middleham.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> **
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
>> >to
>> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
>> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > > >> bones.
>> >> > > >> To:
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
>> >> was
>> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> >> saddled
>> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> >> anyone
>> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> >> throne
>> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
>> >and
>> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
>> >with
>> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>> >pharaohs
>> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- In
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>> >permission
>> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee.Ã I am
>> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>> >persuaded.Ã
>> >> > > >> We live in hope.Ã If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them.Ã If they are not, we cannot
>> >look
>> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>> >(which
>> >> > > >> IÃ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
>> >and
>> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
>> >done
>> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise).Ã I also do
>> >not
>> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
>> >> his
>> >> > > >> undoing.Ã If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>> >historical
>> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>> >used.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Marion
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > ________________________________
>> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
>> >> > > >> > To:
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Ã
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
>> >> one
>> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
>> >one
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
>> >> 15th
>> >> > > >> century:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>> >wood
>> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
>> >a
>> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
>> >but
>> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> >> original
>> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> >> Graves,
>> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
>> >One
>> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>> >velvet
>> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>> >urn,
>> >> > > >> which Charles II
>> >> > > >> ordered
>> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
>> >The
>> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
>> >to
>> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>> >bones.
>> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
>> >the
>> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>> >smaller
>> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>> >photographs
>> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11ââ¬"13 years
>> >old
>> >> > > >> and the younger was 7ââ¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
>> >to
>> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> >> > > >> nine, making
>> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> >> remain
>> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
>> >> sex,
>> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >------------------------------------
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> >> > Visit Your Group
>> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:19 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
>
>
>
>Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way of Henry becoming King were dead.
>
>I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given control over his wife's estate.
>
>Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty we need to look at all the evidence out there.
>
>--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported (Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how far she was prepared to go.
>> Regards, Annette
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>>
>> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a problem, Jeff.
>> >
>> >Karen
>> >
>> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> >Reply-To: <>
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>> >To: ""
>> ><>
>> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >bones.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>> >
>> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â¬" that's why I care.
>> >>
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> Reply-To: <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> >> To: "
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >>
>> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm wondering⬦ is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests that
>> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on the
>> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily Nevill
>> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> >> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Karen
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > Reply-To: <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> >> > To: "
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> > <
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > bones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of Middleham?
>> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility, did
>> >> die
>> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could have
>> >> been
>> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have allowed
>> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> >> > > Sheffe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >________________________________
>> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > > >To:
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned Edward
>> >of
>> >> > > >Middleham.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> **
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with regard
>> >to
>> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_
>> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > > >> bones.
>> >> > > >> To:
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't have
>> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided it
>> >> was
>> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> >> saddled
>> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> >> anyone
>> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to have
>> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family and
>> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that I
>> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> >> throne
>> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII
>> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good one
>> >and
>> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
>> >with
>> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>> >pharaohs
>> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- In
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>> >permission
>> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative, well
>> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee.Ã I am
>> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>> >persuaded.Ã
>> >> > > >> We live in hope.Ã If the bones are right for the princes so be it, we
>> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them.Ã If they are not, we cannot
>> >look
>> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>> >(which
>> >> > > >> IÃ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a criminal
>> >and
>> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
>> >done
>> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise).Ã I also do
>> >not
>> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have been
>> >> his
>> >> > > >> undoing.Ã If she did not what reason did he give her not to see him?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>> >historical
>> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>> >used.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Marion
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > ________________________________
>> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
>> >> > > >> > To:
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Ã
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a further
>> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location where
>> >> one
>> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
>> >one
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the late
>> >> 15th
>> >> > > >> century:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed to
>> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>> >wood
>> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The bones
>> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered from
>> >a
>> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
>> >but
>> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> >> original
>> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later claim
>> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> >> Graves,
>> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet deep.
>> >One
>> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>> >velvet
>> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>> >urn,
>> >> > > >> which Charles II
>> >> > > >> ordered
>> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
>> >The
>> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for reasons
>> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones were
>> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were found
>> >to
>> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>> >bones.
>> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
>> >the
>> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>> >smaller
>> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had
>> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>> >photographs
>> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11ââ¬"13 years
>> >old
>> >> > > >> and the younger was 7ââ¬"11 years old. It was not possible at that time
>> >to
>> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger than
>> >> > > >> nine, making
>> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> >> remain
>> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine the
>> >> sex,
>> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >------------------------------------
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> >> > Visit Your Group
>> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-25 07:34:43
If by 'going on for thirty years' Karen means the battles in the wars of the roses, then the Yorkist side had a legitimate grievance about the way Henry VI was treating them (and ruining the country in the process). From a historical perspective it was virtually inevitable that disparaging one of England's leading magnates would be a recipe for conflict - compare Henry IV and Richard II. The Beaufort/Tudor challenge to Richard III was opportunistic, i.e.more in the nature of Stephen wresting the throne from Matilda.
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
>possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
>behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
>find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
>seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
>Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
>gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
>got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
>historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
>wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
>others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
>in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
>regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
>Karen
>
>From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
>Reply-To: <>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:19:44 -0000
>To: <>
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>bones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and
>a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way
>of Henry becoming King were dead.
>
>I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I
>started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of
>Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing
>the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too
>appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure
>that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the
>control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always
>seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given
>control over his wife's estate.
>
>Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference
>suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of
>Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a
>lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for
>Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty
>we need to look at all the evidence out there.
>
>--- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Annette Carson
><email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported
>(Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have
>been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke
>it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore
>Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In
>brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war
>purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how
>far she was prepared to go.
>> Regards, Annette
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>>
>> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a problem, Jeff.
>> >
>> >Karen
>> >
>> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> >Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>> >To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> ><
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >bones.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>> >
>> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
>> >>
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> >> To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >>
>> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests
>that
>> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on
>the
>> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily
>Nevill
>> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> >> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Karen
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> >> > To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> > <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > bones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of
>Middleham?
>> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility,
>did
>> >> die
>> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could
>have
>> >> been
>> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have
>allowed
>> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> >> > > Sheffe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >________________________________
>> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > > >To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned
>Edward
>> >of
>> >> > > >Middleham.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> **
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with
>regard
>> >to
>> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed
>_
>> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on
>those
>> >> > > >> bones.
>> >> > > >> To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't
>have
>> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided
>it
>> >> was
>> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> >> saddled
>> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> >> anyone
>> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to
>have
>> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family
>and
>> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that
>I
>> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> >> throne
>> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry
>VII
>> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good
>one
>> >and
>> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
>> >with
>> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>> >pharaohs
>> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>> >permission
>> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative,
>well
>> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I
>am
>> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>> >persuaded.Â
>> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it,
>we
>> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
>> >look
>> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>> >(which
>> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a
>criminal
>> >and
>> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
>> >done
>> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also
>do
>> >not
>> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have
>been
>> >> his
>> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see
>him?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>> >historical
>> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>> >used.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Marion
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > ________________________________
>> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
>> >> > > >> > To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Â
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a
>further
>> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location
>where
>> >> one
>> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
>> >one
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the
>late
>> >> 15th
>> >> > > >> century:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed
>to
>> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>> >wood
>> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The
>bones
>> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered
>from
>> >a
>> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
>> >but
>> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> >> original
>> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later
>claim
>> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> >> Graves,
>> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet
>deep.
>> >One
>> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>> >velvet
>> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>> >urn,
>> >> > > >> which Charles II
>> >> > > >> ordered
>> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
>> >The
>> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for
>reasons
>> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones
>were
>> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were
>found
>> >to
>> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>> >bones.
>> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
>> >the
>> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>> >smaller
>> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones
>had
>> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>> >photographs
>> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13
>years
>> >old
>> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that
>time
>> >to
>> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger
>than
>> >> > > >> nine, making
>> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> >> remain
>> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine
>the
>> >> sex,
>> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >------------------------------------
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> >> > Visit Your Group
>> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
>possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
>behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
>find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
>seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
>Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
>gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
>got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
>historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
>wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
>others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
>in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
>regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
>Karen
>
>From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
>Reply-To: <>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:19:44 -0000
>To: <>
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>bones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and
>a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way
>of Henry becoming King were dead.
>
>I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I
>started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of
>Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing
>the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too
>appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure
>that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the
>control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always
>seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given
>control over his wife's estate.
>
>Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference
>suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of
>Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a
>lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for
>Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty
>we need to look at all the evidence out there.
>
>--- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Annette Carson
><email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported
>(Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to have
>been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to provoke
>it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to restore
>Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In
>brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war
>purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how
>far she was prepared to go.
>> Regards, Annette
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>>
>> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a problem, Jeff.
>> >
>> >Karen
>> >
>> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> >Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>> >To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> ><
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >bones.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>> >
>> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
>> >>
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> >> To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >>
>> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests
>that
>> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on
>the
>> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily
>Nevill
>> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> >> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Karen
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > Reply-To: <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> >> > To: "
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> > <
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > bones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of
>Middleham?
>> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility,
>did
>> >> die
>> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could
>have
>> >> been
>> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have
>allowed
>> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> >> > > Sheffe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >________________________________
>> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > > >To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned
>Edward
>> >of
>> >> > > >Middleham.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> **
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with
>regard
>> >to
>> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed
>_
>> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on
>those
>> >> > > >> bones.
>> >> > > >> To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather snooty
>> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't
>have
>> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've decided
>it
>> >> was
>> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> >> saddled
>> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and would
>> >> anyone
>> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to
>have
>> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family
>and
>> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that
>I
>> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> >> throne
>> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry
>VII
>> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good
>one
>> >and
>> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being shot
>> >with
>> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>> >pharaohs
>> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>> >permission
>> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative,
>well
>> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I
>am
>> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>> >persuaded.Â
>> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it,
>we
>> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we cannot
>> >look
>> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>> >(which
>> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a
>criminal
>> >and
>> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may have
>> >done
>> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also
>do
>> >not
>> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have
>been
>> >> his
>> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see
>him?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>> >historical
>> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>> >used.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Marion
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > ________________________________
>> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
>> >> > > >> > To:
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Â
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a
>further
>> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location
>where
>> >> one
>> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected with
>> >one
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the
>late
>> >> 15th
>> >> > > >> century:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were assumed
>to
>> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. Since
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>> >wood
>> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The
>bones
>> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered
>from
>> >a
>> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White Tower,
>> >but
>> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> >> original
>> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later
>claim
>> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> >> Graves,
>> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet
>deep.
>> >One
>> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>> >velvet
>> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>> >urn,
>> >> > > >> which Charles II
>> >> > > >> ordered
>> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII Chapel.
>> >The
>> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for
>reasons
>> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones
>were
>> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were
>found
>> >to
>> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>> >bones.
>> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than
>> >the
>> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>> >smaller
>> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones
>had
>> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>> >photographs
>> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13
>years
>> >old
>> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at that
>time
>> >to
>> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated that
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger
>than
>> >> > > >> nine, making
>> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No further
>> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> >> remain
>> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine
>the
>> >> sex,
>> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >------------------------------------
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> >> > Visit Your Group
>> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones.
2012-06-25 10:07:29
Anette
I'm up to my ears in the 1450s at the moment and while it's clear that York
had some genuine grievances, as did Warwick, much of what they did,
including the first battle of St Albans, wasn't entirely done for altruistic
reasons. The deliberate targeting and killing of Somerset and Northumberland
at that battle seriously came back to haunt them. Warwick's feud with
Somerset certainly wasn't about the good of England, nor was York's with
Somerset, nor the Nevill/Percy feud. Even knowing that at least half their
minds were on their own survival, political and otherwise, and not focused
solely on the good of England, hasn't stopped me admiring and even loving
them, in fact the digging I've been doing in the last couple of years (as
opposed to the surface skimming I've been doing since high school) has given
me a much greater appreciation of the nuances, the people and their motives.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:34:43 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
If by 'going on for thirty years' Karen means the battles in the wars of the
roses, then the Yorkist side had a legitimate grievance about the way Henry
VI was treating them (and ruining the country in the process). From a
historical perspective it was virtually inevitable that disparaging one of
England's leading magnates would be a recipe for conflict - compare Henry IV
and Richard II. The Beaufort/Tudor challenge to Richard III was
opportunistic, i.e.more in the nature of Stephen wresting the throne from
Matilda.
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
wrote:
>Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
>possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
>behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
>find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
>seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
>Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
>gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
>got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
>historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
>wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
>others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
>in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
>regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
>Karen
>
>From: ricard1an <maryfriend@... <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com> >
>Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:19:44 -0000
>To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>bones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and
>a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way
>of Henry becoming King were dead.
>
>I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I
>started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of
>Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing
>the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too
>appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure
>that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the
>control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always
>seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given
>control over his wife's estate.
>
>Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference
>suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of
>Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a
>lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for
>Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty
>we need to look at all the evidence out there.
>
>--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Annette Carson
><email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported
>(Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to
have
>been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to
provoke
>it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to
restore
>Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In
>brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war
>purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how
>far she was prepared to go.
>> Regards, Annette
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>>
>> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a problem, Jeff.
>> >
>> >Karen
>> >
>> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> >Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>> >To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> ><
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >bones.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>> >
>> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
>> >>
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> >> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >>
>> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests
>that
>> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on
>the
>> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily
>Nevill
>> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> >> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Karen
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> >> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > bones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of
>Middleham?
>> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility,
>did
>> >> die
>> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could
>have
>> >> been
>> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have
>allowed
>> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> >> > > Sheffe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >________________________________
>> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned
>Edward
>> >of
>> >> > > >Middleham.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> **
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with
>regard
>> >to
>> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshe
d
>_
>> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on
>those
>> >> > > >> bones.
>> >> > > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather
snooty
>> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't
>have
>> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've
decided
>it
>> >> was
>> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> >> saddled
>> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and
would
>> >> anyone
>> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to
>have
>> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family
>and
>> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that
>I
>> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> >> throne
>> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry
>VII
>> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good
>one
>> >and
>> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being
shot
>> >with
>> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>> >pharaohs
>> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>> >permission
>> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative,
>well
>> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I
>am
>> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>> >persuaded.Â
>> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it,
>we
>> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we
cannot
>> >look
>> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>> >(which
>> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a
>criminal
>> >and
>> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may
have
>> >done
>> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also
>do
>> >not
>> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have
>been
>> >> his
>> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see
>him?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>> >historical
>> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>> >used.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Marion
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > ________________________________
>> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
>> >> > > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Â
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a
>further
>> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location
>where
>> >> one
>> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected
with
>> >one
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the
>late
>> >> 15th
>> >> > > >> century:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were
assumed
>to
>> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons.
Since
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>> >wood
>> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The
>bones
>> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered
>from
>> >a
>> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White
Tower,
>> >but
>> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> >> original
>> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later
>claim
>> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> >> Graves,
>> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet
>deep.
>> >One
>> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>> >velvet
>> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>> >urn,
>> >> > > >> which Charles II
>> >> > > >> ordered
>> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII
Chapel.
>> >The
>> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for
>reasons
>> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones
>were
>> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were
>found
>> >to
>> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>> >bones.
>> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger
than
>> >the
>> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>> >smaller
>> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones
>had
>> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>> >photographs
>> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13
>years
>> >old
>> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at
that
>time
>> >to
>> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated
that
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger
>than
>> >> > > >> nine, making
>> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No
further
>> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> >> remain
>> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine
>the
>> >> sex,
>> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >------------------------------------
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
Topic
>> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> >> > Visit Your Group
>> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm up to my ears in the 1450s at the moment and while it's clear that York
had some genuine grievances, as did Warwick, much of what they did,
including the first battle of St Albans, wasn't entirely done for altruistic
reasons. The deliberate targeting and killing of Somerset and Northumberland
at that battle seriously came back to haunt them. Warwick's feud with
Somerset certainly wasn't about the good of England, nor was York's with
Somerset, nor the Nevill/Percy feud. Even knowing that at least half their
minds were on their own survival, political and otherwise, and not focused
solely on the good of England, hasn't stopped me admiring and even loving
them, in fact the digging I've been doing in the last couple of years (as
opposed to the surface skimming I've been doing since high school) has given
me a much greater appreciation of the nuances, the people and their motives.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:34:43 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones.
If by 'going on for thirty years' Karen means the battles in the wars of the
roses, then the Yorkist side had a legitimate grievance about the way Henry
VI was treating them (and ruining the country in the process). From a
historical perspective it was virtually inevitable that disparaging one of
England's leading magnates would be a recipe for conflict - compare Henry IV
and Richard II. The Beaufort/Tudor challenge to Richard III was
opportunistic, i.e.more in the nature of Stephen wresting the throne from
Matilda.
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
wrote:
>Its one thing, I think, to express a wish to research even the most remote
>possibilities (not that I think for one moment that Margaret Beaufort was
>behind the death of Edward of Middleham), but quite another to constantly
>find reference to her as 'a hag' or hopes that she 'burn in hell', I've even
>seen Richard III criticised (by a staunch supporter) for not executing her!
>Involving thousands of people in the horrors of war for purely political
>gain had been going on (on and off) for some thirty years before Margaret B
>got started. And this Society stands for finding the truth about one
>historical character, one who many feel has been villified and defamed. I
>wonder, then, how so many of its members so cheerfully villify and defame
>others. 'Dislike' is one thing. Calling someone 'evil' and hoping they 'rot
>in hell' is quite another. But I've got the Nevills to look after in that
>regard and shall leave Margaret Beaufort for someone else to defend.
>
>Karen
>
>From: ricard1an <maryfriend@... <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com> >
>Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:19:44 -0000
>To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>bones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Agree Annette. Also it has always seemed odd to me that within about two and
>a half years, April 1483 to August 1485, all the people who stood in the way
>of Henry becoming King were dead.
>
>I gave a talk to my local branch several years ago on this subject. I
>started thinking about it after reading R.E Collins account of the death of
>Edward IV and the fact that he may have been poisoned. While I was preparing
>the talk I read Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" and he too
>appeared to think that Margaret Beaufort was involved in a plot to ensure
>that Henry became King.This I believe is surported by Richard giving the
>control of her lands to Stanley after the Hastings affair. It has always
>seemed odd to me that one day Stanley is arrested and then he is given
>control over his wife's estate.
>
>Since then Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at a Ricardian conference
>suggesting that Margaret Beaufort may have been involved in the death of
>Edward of Middleham. Apparently the person in charge of his nursery was a
>lady called, I believe, Anne Olney? whose husband Peter had worked for
>Margaret Beaufort. I think before we can say MB is either innocent or guilty
>we need to look at all the evidence out there.
>
>--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Annette Carson
><email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think many Ricardians dislike Margaret Beaufort because she supported
>(Vergil suggests she engineered) warfare against a king that we consider to
have
>been a perfectly good king, who had done nothing to her or her family to
provoke
>it. We can understand the desire of the Woodvilles and other Yorkists to
restore
>Edward V, but her ambition for her son was in a totally different category. In
>brief she was prepared to involve thousands of people in the horrors of war
>purely for political gain, and that`s why I can understand suspicions about how
>far she was prepared to go.
>> Regards, Annette
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>>
>> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a problem, Jeff.
>> >
>> >Karen
>> >
>> >From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@...>
>> >Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:18:21 -0500
>> >To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> ><
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >bones.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand your point. I shouldn't have snapped. My track record with
>> >these back and forth email things have almost always ended badly.
>> >
>> >On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gracious! I'm pro-Yorkist as well, Jeff, but never quite felt the need for
>> >> blind subjectivity. Margaret Beaufort was an interesting woman who is
>> >> villified far too often by far too many Ricardians â€" that's why I care.
>> >>
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >> From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:59 -0500
>> >> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >>
>> >> What do you care? I'm Biased and pro-Yorkist. So what?
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
>> ><mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>> >> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm wondering… is there anything in contemporary sources that suggests
>that
>> >> > Margaret Beaufort was the least bit 'evil'? Or is this simply based on
>the
>> >> > fact that she did everything she could to help her son? As did Cecily
>Nevill
>> >> > and the countess of Salisbury, among others. Yet to see either of them
>> >> > tagged 'evil'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Karen
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jeff <jeff.uzumaki@... <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:43:21 -0500
>> >> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> >> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> > bones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hell I don't know it happened 500 years before I was born. It's what I
>> >> > hypothesize. Nothing more. I think she was evil enough to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Sheffe <shethra77@...
>> ><mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>
>> >> > <mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How could Margaret Beaufort have gotten anywhere near Edward of
>Middleham?
>> >> > The sad truth is that a great many children, even those of the nobility,
>did
>> >> die
>> >> > before puberty, and any of a great number of childhood diseases could
>have
>> >> been
>> >> > why. I don't think for a moment that Edward's caretakers would have
>allowed
>> >> > anyone meaning harm to the family to enter.
>> >> > > Sheffe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >________________________________
>> >> > > > From: Jeffrey Meehan <jeff.uzumaki@...
>> ><mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com>
>> >> > <mailto:jeff.uzumaki%40gmail.com> >
>> >> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:31 PM
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >My guess is that either Margret Beaufort or Henry Tudor did the deed.
>> >> > > >Richard probably predeceased the boys. I also think she poisoned
>Edward
>> >of
>> >> > > >Middleham.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...
>> ><mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
>> >> > <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> **
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> according to holinshed..richard DID declare his innocence with
>regard
>> >to
>> >> > > >> the murder of his nephews.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshe
d
>_
>> >> > chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> scroll down the first column to where it tags 1484.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- On Sat, 6/23/12, HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> From: HI <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> ><mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>
>> >> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> >
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on
>those
>> >> > > >> bones.
>> >> > > >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> Received: Saturday, June 23, 2012, 10:27 AM
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I completely agree with you. The Queen seems to take a rather
snooty
>> >> > > >> attitude to her alleged relatives.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If these remains are of the princes they could've been killed by
>> >> > > >> underlings of Buckingham or Richard III, but why Richard wouldn't
>have
>> >> > > >> broadcast this to the world is beyond me. Richard III may've
decided
>it
>> >> was
>> >> > > >> too dangerous to let the princes live or it may be that Buckingham
>> >> saddled
>> >> > > >> Richard with a fait accompli from which he couldn't escape and
would
>> >> anyone
>> >> > > >> believe Richard? Certainly, Richard's conduct before 1483 seems to
>have
>> >> > > >> been exemplary, but he had his own survival and that of his family
>and
>> >> > > >> friends to consider. Buckingham was such a two-faced turn coat that
>I
>> >> > > >> wouldn't put anything beyond him and he was probably aiming for the
>> >> throne
>> >> > > >> himself: for him to have got rid of Edward V, Richard III and Henry
>VII
>> >> > > >> may've appealed to his sense of self-important vanity.
>> >> > > >> The point you made about the case of the last Tsar is a very good
>one
>> >and
>> >> > > >> Anastasia, his daughter I believe has been established as being
shot
>> >with
>> >> > > >> the rest of the family, which was a mystery for a long time. The
>> >pharaohs
>> >> > > >> have been investigated in every conceivable way.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , marion cheatham
>> >> > > >> <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given
>> >permission
>> >> > > >> for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative,
>well
>> >> > > >> they might be, they also might be children of a tower employee. I
>am
>> >> > > >> hoping that Charles with his more investigative mind might be
>> >persuaded.Â
>> >> > > >> We live in hope. If the bones are right for the princes so be it,
>we
>> >> > > >> cannot prove who killed or buried them. If they are not, we
cannot
>> >look
>> >> > > >> at Perkin Warbecks bones for example to see if his claim was true
>> >(which
>> >> > > >> IÂ now think is/could be true), as he was disposed off as a
>criminal
>> >and
>> >> > > >> no burial place is available (also something that Henry VII may
have
>> >done
>> >> > > >> to make it difficult for anyone every to prove otherwise). I also
>do
>> >not
>> >> > > >> believe that Elizabeth of York never saw Warbeck, that might have
>been
>> >> his
>> >> > > >> undoing. If she did not what reason did he give her not to see
>him?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Sorry for the rant, but when technical changes can assist a
>> >historical
>> >> > > >> mystery, like the case of the last Tsar etc I believe it should be
>> >used.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Marion
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > ________________________________
>> >> > > >> > From: HI <hi.dung@>
>> >> > > >> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012, 9:41
>> >> > > >> > Subject: Dean of Westminster on those
>> >> bones.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Â
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > The Dean of Westminster in the 1970s apparently said that a
>further
>> >> > > >> investigation of the bones of the alleged princes in the Tower was
>> >> > > >> unnecessary: the bones were of the right ages and in the location
>where
>> >> one
>> >> > > >> would expect them to be. Velvet was reported as being connected
with
>> >one
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> them which would be associated with upper class or royalty in the
>late
>> >> 15th
>> >> > > >> century:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > "In 1674, some workmen remodeling the Tower of London were
assumed
>to
>> >> > > >> have dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons.
Since
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones were reportedly found in a pile of rubble with some pieces of
>> >wood
>> >> > > >> near by, it was theorized that they had been in a wooden box. The
>bones
>> >> > > >> were reported (presumably by the workmen) as having been recovered
>from
>> >a
>> >> > > >> highly unusual ten feet deep in the ground close to the White
Tower,
>> >but
>> >> > > >> not inside it, not quite consistent with More's description of the
>> >> original
>> >> > > >> burial place of the princes, and not consistent with More's later
>claim
>> >> > > >> that the bodies had been subsequently removed and buried elsewhere.
>> >> Graves,
>> >> > > >> then dug by simple hand tools, were rarely more than three feet
>deep.
>> >One
>> >> > > >> anonymous report was that they were found with "pieces of rag and
>> >velvet
>> >> > > >> about them", the velvet indicating that the bodies were those of
>> >> > > >> aristocrats. Eventually the bones were gathered up and placed in an
>> >urn,
>> >> > > >> which Charles II
>> >> > > >> ordered
>> >> > > >> > interred in Westminster Abbey in the wall of the Henry VII
Chapel.
>> >The
>> >> > > >> rags and velvet were not mentioned again and, presumably, for
>reasons
>> >> > > >> unknown, were not included in the reinterrment. In 1933 the bones
>were
>> >> > > >> taken out and examined, and then replaced in the urn. They were
>found
>> >to
>> >> > > >> have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal
>> >bones.
>> >> > > >> There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger
than
>> >the
>> >> > > >> other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the
>> >smaller
>> >> > > >> jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones
>had
>> >> > > >> been broken, possibly by the original workmen. Examination of
>> >photographs
>> >> > > >> from this exhumation indicated that the elder child was 11â€"13
>years
>> >old
>> >> > > >> and the younger was 7â€"11 years old. It was not possible at
that
>time
>> >to
>> >> > > >> determine the sex of children's skeletons. One scientist stated
that
>> >the
>> >> > > >> bones of the younger child were possibly those of a child younger
>than
>> >> > > >> nine, making
>> >> > > >> > identification with the younger prince hardly possible. No
further
>> >> > > >> scientific examination has since been conducted on the bones, which
>> >> remain
>> >> > > >> in Westminster Abbey, and DNA analysis, which would now determine
>the
>> >> sex,
>> >> > > >> has not so far been attempted."
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >------------------------------------
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
Topic
>> >> > Messages in this topic (8)
>> >> > RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> >> > Visit Your Group
>> >> > Switch to: Text-Only,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.