mtDNA
mtDNA
2012-09-17 12:37:50
from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 13:32:02
The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: mtDNA
from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: mtDNA
from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 14:19:46
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
mtDNA
2012-09-17 14:49:38
Definitely NOT a scientist, and as there seem to quite a few posters with greater knowledge I wanted to see if my thoughts on using mtDNA for identification were correct.
1. mtDNA is passed via the female line of descent and changes/mutates very, very slowly.
2. ALL the children of a particular female will have the same mtDNA, irrespective of who that child's father may actually have been. Any daughters of that woman will pass on the exact same mtDNA unchanged. However, while any male offspring won't pass that mtDNA on, he will still carry it himself.
3. We have a direct female descent from, I believe, the sister of Richard III who would have had the exact same mtDNA as Richard himself did and, most importantly for us, would have passed that exact same mtDNA on.
4. So, while the Ibsen mtDNA can tell us whether or not the remains found in Leicester are those of a descendant of Richard's sister Anne (Duchess of Exeter, I believe?), the matching of mtDNA cannot tell us that the remains definitely are Richard, only that that person was directly related to Richard's sister.
5. However, as we have knowledge of how and where Richard's elder brothers died and where they were buried, we can dismiss them from consideration for identification purposes.
6. Which would leave Richard as the remaining, unaccounted-for, brother of Anne (Duchess of Exeter?).
7. Therefore, barring the incredibly odd chance that the remains of the person discovered in Leicester were those of an illegitimate son of Richard or his brothers, the only person left who would match would be Richard. Unless...
Cecily Neville have any sisters, because that would be, as best as I can figure, the only way to find another body with the same mtDNA, but NOT that of Richard, which would be stretching coincidence and the "Law of Probability" beyond anything even Douglas Adams could have imagined!
Did I get it right?
1. mtDNA is passed via the female line of descent and changes/mutates very, very slowly.
2. ALL the children of a particular female will have the same mtDNA, irrespective of who that child's father may actually have been. Any daughters of that woman will pass on the exact same mtDNA unchanged. However, while any male offspring won't pass that mtDNA on, he will still carry it himself.
3. We have a direct female descent from, I believe, the sister of Richard III who would have had the exact same mtDNA as Richard himself did and, most importantly for us, would have passed that exact same mtDNA on.
4. So, while the Ibsen mtDNA can tell us whether or not the remains found in Leicester are those of a descendant of Richard's sister Anne (Duchess of Exeter, I believe?), the matching of mtDNA cannot tell us that the remains definitely are Richard, only that that person was directly related to Richard's sister.
5. However, as we have knowledge of how and where Richard's elder brothers died and where they were buried, we can dismiss them from consideration for identification purposes.
6. Which would leave Richard as the remaining, unaccounted-for, brother of Anne (Duchess of Exeter?).
7. Therefore, barring the incredibly odd chance that the remains of the person discovered in Leicester were those of an illegitimate son of Richard or his brothers, the only person left who would match would be Richard. Unless...
Cecily Neville have any sisters, because that would be, as best as I can figure, the only way to find another body with the same mtDNA, but NOT that of Richard, which would be stretching coincidence and the "Law of Probability" beyond anything even Douglas Adams could have imagined!
Did I get it right?
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 15:12:02
--- In , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Im confident what the result would be.
>
> I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question
for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched
for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I
have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth
would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two
bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a
busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a
better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where
a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later
but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a
later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have
been very tidy builders..
>
> Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for
information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a
lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that
Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" favefauve@
wrote:
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered
somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is
ever given.
> >
Perhaps King Henry did not want the bodies of the princes found, as
such a discovery might prove that he had something to do with their
murders, directly or indirectly.
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Im confident what the result would be.
>
> I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question
for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched
for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I
have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth
would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two
bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a
busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a
better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where
a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later
but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a
later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have
been very tidy builders..
>
> Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for
information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a
lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that
Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" favefauve@
wrote:
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered
somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is
ever given.
> >
Perhaps King Henry did not want the bodies of the princes found, as
such a discovery might prove that he had something to do with their
murders, directly or indirectly.
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 15:19:38
Hi Philip...Good point..On the other hand, Henry seemed plagued by 'pretenders' later on...I think it would have suited him better to have been able to 'discover' the bodies and at that stage it would have been very easy to have put the blame onto Richard and it is supposed to have been a rumour going around at that time....
By the way...good luck with your trip to Leicester....Eileen
--- In , "PHILIP" <p.photiou.123@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Im confident what the result would be.
> >
> > I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question
> for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched
> for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I
> have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth
> would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two
> bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a
> busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a
> better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where
> a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later
> but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a
> later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have
> been very tidy builders..
> >
> > Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for
> information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a
> lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that
> Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "favefauve@" favefauve@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
> family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
> work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered
> somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is
> ever given.
> > >
> Perhaps King Henry did not want the bodies of the princes found, as
> such a discovery might prove that he had something to do with their
> murders, directly or indirectly.
>
By the way...good luck with your trip to Leicester....Eileen
--- In , "PHILIP" <p.photiou.123@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Im confident what the result would be.
> >
> > I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question
> for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched
> for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I
> have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth
> would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two
> bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a
> busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a
> better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where
> a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later
> but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a
> later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have
> been very tidy builders..
> >
> > Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for
> information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a
> lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that
> Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "favefauve@" favefauve@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
> family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
> work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered
> somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is
> ever given.
> > >
> Perhaps King Henry did not want the bodies of the princes found, as
> such a discovery might prove that he had something to do with their
> murders, directly or indirectly.
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 15:28:10
As far as i understand it, yes, you're quite right.
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Definitely NOT a scientist, and as there seem to quite a few posters with greater knowledge I wanted to see if my thoughts on using mtDNA for identification were correct.
>
> 1. mtDNA is passed via the female line of descent and changes/mutates very, very slowly.
> 2. ALL the children of a particular female will have the same mtDNA, irrespective of who that child's father may actually have been. Any daughters of that woman will pass on the exact same mtDNA unchanged. However, while any male offspring won't pass that mtDNA on, he will still carry it himself.
> 3. We have a direct female descent from, I believe, the sister of Richard III who would have had the exact same mtDNA as Richard himself did and, most importantly for us, would have passed that exact same mtDNA on.
> 4. So, while the Ibsen mtDNA can tell us whether or not the remains found in Leicester are those of a descendant of Richard's sister Anne (Duchess of Exeter, I believe?), the matching of mtDNA cannot tell us that the remains definitely are Richard, only that that person was directly related to Richard's sister.
> 5. However, as we have knowledge of how and where Richard's elder brothers died and where they were buried, we can dismiss them from consideration for identification purposes.
> 6. Which would leave Richard as the remaining, unaccounted-for, brother of Anne (Duchess of Exeter?).
> 7. Therefore, barring the incredibly odd chance that the remains of the person discovered in Leicester were those of an illegitimate son of Richard or his brothers, the only person left who would match would be Richard. Unless...
> Cecily Neville have any sisters, because that would be, as best as I can figure, the only way to find another body with the same mtDNA, but NOT that of Richard, which would be stretching coincidence and the "Law of Probability" beyond anything even Douglas Adams could have imagined!
> Did I get it right?
>
>
>
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Definitely NOT a scientist, and as there seem to quite a few posters with greater knowledge I wanted to see if my thoughts on using mtDNA for identification were correct.
>
> 1. mtDNA is passed via the female line of descent and changes/mutates very, very slowly.
> 2. ALL the children of a particular female will have the same mtDNA, irrespective of who that child's father may actually have been. Any daughters of that woman will pass on the exact same mtDNA unchanged. However, while any male offspring won't pass that mtDNA on, he will still carry it himself.
> 3. We have a direct female descent from, I believe, the sister of Richard III who would have had the exact same mtDNA as Richard himself did and, most importantly for us, would have passed that exact same mtDNA on.
> 4. So, while the Ibsen mtDNA can tell us whether or not the remains found in Leicester are those of a descendant of Richard's sister Anne (Duchess of Exeter, I believe?), the matching of mtDNA cannot tell us that the remains definitely are Richard, only that that person was directly related to Richard's sister.
> 5. However, as we have knowledge of how and where Richard's elder brothers died and where they were buried, we can dismiss them from consideration for identification purposes.
> 6. Which would leave Richard as the remaining, unaccounted-for, brother of Anne (Duchess of Exeter?).
> 7. Therefore, barring the incredibly odd chance that the remains of the person discovered in Leicester were those of an illegitimate son of Richard or his brothers, the only person left who would match would be Richard. Unless...
> Cecily Neville have any sisters, because that would be, as best as I can figure, the only way to find another body with the same mtDNA, but NOT that of Richard, which would be stretching coincidence and the "Law of Probability" beyond anything even Douglas Adams could have imagined!
> Did I get it right?
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 15:33:26
The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: mtDNA
>
>
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: mtDNA
>
>
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 16:09:19
BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: mtDNA
>
>
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: mtDNA
>
>
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 16:29:36
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:02:12
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:07:38
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:14:15
What I can't get past is if Richard did kill his nephews, why didn't he show them and say they died of natural causes? Children died all the time from illness. He was the king, who would have questioned him? There was a precedent for this. Edward IV killed Henry IV this way (and I absolutely do not believe Richard personally killed him!) It seems stupid to have done it any other way and Richard was obviously not a stupid man. So this can (to me) mean only one of two things:
1. The boys were sent away for safety and therefore could not be shown or
2. Someone else killed them and Richard did not know who or what happened to them or he knew who (Buckingham?) but it was too late, once he found out, to show them.
Vickie
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
1. The boys were sent away for safety and therefore could not be shown or
2. Someone else killed them and Richard did not know who or what happened to them or he knew who (Buckingham?) but it was too late, once he found out, to show them.
Vickie
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:15:49
I of course meant Henery VI :)
Vickie
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
What I can't get past is if Richard did kill his nephews, why didn't he show them and say they died of natural causes? Children died all the time from illness. He was the king, who would have questioned him? There was a precedent for this. Edward IV killed Henry IV this way (and I absolutely do not believe Richard personally killed him!) It seems stupid to have done it any other way and Richard was obviously not a stupid man. So this can (to me) mean only one of two things:
1. The boys were sent away for safety and therefore could not be shown or
2. Someone else killed them and Richard did not know who or what happened to them or he knew who (Buckingham?) but it was too late, once he found out, to show them.
Vickie
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
Vickie
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
What I can't get past is if Richard did kill his nephews, why didn't he show them and say they died of natural causes? Children died all the time from illness. He was the king, who would have questioned him? There was a precedent for this. Edward IV killed Henry IV this way (and I absolutely do not believe Richard personally killed him!) It seems stupid to have done it any other way and Richard was obviously not a stupid man. So this can (to me) mean only one of two things:
1. The boys were sent away for safety and therefore could not be shown or
2. Someone else killed them and Richard did not know who or what happened to them or he knew who (Buckingham?) but it was too late, once he found out, to show them.
Vickie
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:19:15
I give up Henry VI
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
I of course meant Henery VI :)
Vickie
From: Vickie Cook <mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
What I can't get past is if Richard did kill his nephews, why didn't he show them and say they died of natural causes? Children died all the time from illness. He was the king, who would have questioned him? There was a precedent for this. Edward IV killed Henry IV this way (and I absolutely do not believe Richard personally killed him!) It seems stupid to have done it any other way and Richard was obviously not a stupid man. So this can (to me) mean only one of two things:
1. The boys were sent away for safety and therefore could not be shown or
2. Someone else killed them and Richard did not know who or what happened to them or he knew who (Buckingham?) but it was too late, once he found out, to show them.
Vickie
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
I of course meant Henery VI :)
Vickie
From: Vickie Cook <mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
What I can't get past is if Richard did kill his nephews, why didn't he show them and say they died of natural causes? Children died all the time from illness. He was the king, who would have questioned him? There was a precedent for this. Edward IV killed Henry IV this way (and I absolutely do not believe Richard personally killed him!) It seems stupid to have done it any other way and Richard was obviously not a stupid man. So this can (to me) mean only one of two things:
1. The boys were sent away for safety and therefore could not be shown or
2. Someone else killed them and Richard did not know who or what happened to them or he knew who (Buckingham?) but it was too late, once he found out, to show them.
Vickie
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Leaving us the Perkin an Eastwell theories, among others.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: mtDNA
Quite right, Eileen, and of course Henry Tudor must have used threats as well as inducements to try to get information out of people, especially anyone associated with the Tower of London.
However, Thomas More's tale of 'secret' burials at the Tower (two of them, with nobody noticing!), which led Charles II to assume that the remains of children found ten feet under a staircase were the buried princes, really must be set aside once and for all if one is to grapple seriously with the question of what actually happened to them. Clearly if either of the boys was killed and hidden his body would have been consigned to the Thames - it would have been daft to seek a more risky and complicated solution. So More is out of the equation, and the bones in Westminster Abbey likewise.
Therefore my own approach has been to ask myself what could have happened at the time of their disappearance, as a result of which nobody could give Henry's men a clue on which to hang an accusation against Richard? To me the plain answer is that they and their belongings were packed off to some other location. It would have been what everyone expected, including the boys themselves (and, I would argue, Margaret Beaufort's party would have expected the same thing too, and probably had agents on watch at the Tower as well as at Westminster Abbey keeping tabs on all of Edward IV's children). With a quiet departure via the Thames gate there would have been no drama and no loose ends for people to gossip and poke around and wonder about, and if anyone asked, the simple answer to 'Where are they?' would be 'Dunno, not my place to ask - they left last Thursday'.
After their departure it's open to supposition where they went and what happened to them, but please let's not let More and Shakespeare continue to cloud our thinking! I don't imagine Tudor and his party spent a single minute looking for burial places at the Tower - what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
Regards, Annette
P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im confident what the result would be.
I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>
> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:21:03
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:25:19
I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:27:10
Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
Karen
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
Karen
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:36:19
There is no denying that 2 children were found buried in the Tower, but who were these children? That is the question
Vickie
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
Karen
From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com" <mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Vickie
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
Karen
From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com" <mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:45:02
Yes, it very much is.
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
There is no denying that 2 children were found buried in the Tower, but who
were these children? That is the question
Vickie
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
Karen
From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com"
<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/
great-grandfather
Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
There is no denying that 2 children were found buried in the Tower, but who
were these children? That is the question
Vickie
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
Karen
From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com"
<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
be dated to 1st century Palestine?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/
great-grandfather
Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:47:54
Perhaps he's afraid that he isn't a Plantagenet! That long ago an erring wife passed off a lover's child as her husband's. It must have happened in some families - DNA can stir up a hornets' nest.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:52:24
Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 17:56:27
Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I suspect this was quite a regular happening.
Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they could have been foundation sacrifices...
Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have to think about the human factor here...
Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>
> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they could have been foundation sacrifices...
Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have to think about the human factor here...
Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>
> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:00:22
It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Karen
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Karen
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:07:25
what they would have wanted to know was the identity of who made the transport arrangements and/or accompanied the boys when they left: of course these people would have been hand-picked for the task. The fact that the Tudor camp learned nothing, as apparently was the case, speaks volumes for the steadfastness of whoever may have been in on the secret, don't you think?
> Regards, Annette
> P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
Agreed Annette...the 'steadfastness' of those involved...I find moving....
You have made yet another good point that there would have been very interested parties keeping an eye on the comings and goings in the Tower....and people in their pay to report anything strange or unusual....I expect even La Woodville was receiving news of what was going on or not going on...
Eileen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> Im confident what the result would be.
>
> I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
>
> Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards, Annette
> P.S. The only way to conceal them adequately would be to separate them, obviously.
Agreed Annette...the 'steadfastness' of those involved...I find moving....
You have made yet another good point that there would have been very interested parties keeping an eye on the comings and goings in the Tower....and people in their pay to report anything strange or unusual....I expect even La Woodville was receiving news of what was going on or not going on...
Eileen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> Im confident what the result would be.
>
> I have given long thought as to these remains. One important question for me is after Bosworth the first place Henry would have had searched for the missing boys was the Tower where they were last seen...and I have read that he did indeed have 'diligent' search made....How on earth would noone have spotted the recent disturbance to the area where two bodies had been buried. Where these bones turned up would have been a busy area in the 15th century....Did no whistleblower..for lack of a better word...seeking to curry favour with the new king point out where a recent burial could have taken place...We are not talking years later but a matter of a few months...How noone noticed at the time or at a later date is a complete nonsense...Well all I can say is they must have been very tidy builders..
>
> Im sure Henry would have been enormously pleased and grateful for information leading to the burial....It really would have been packed a lot of wallop for him to have been able to prove beyond doubt that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Eileen
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:10:50
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And the person buried in Jesse James's grave is Jesse James. Sigh.
Katy
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the cellar in Ekaterinburg.
And the person buried in Jesse James's grave is Jesse James. Sigh.
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:11:06
It is indeed a cheap shot and slur. I admire Cecily so much...What she endured and survived is beyond me. Its about time someone wrote a book about Cecily.....Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:15:06
Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
anyone noticing. I'm not saying I think the Princes were murdered and buried
in the Tower, I don't know what happened to them anymore than anyone else
does. But the remains of those two children can't be dismissed just because
we don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths. Everything has
to be taken into account. There's no evidence the boys were smuggled to
Burgund. Neither of them grew to manhood and came to England with an army to
take back their father's throne. (I've already submitted my opinion re
Perkin Warbeck. It's highly unlikely he was actually the young duke of
York.) The possibility that the skeletons were the remains of the princes
has to be taken into account.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:56:26 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower
has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even
way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a
child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what
have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the
back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could
have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I
suspect this was quite a regular happening.
Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they
could have been foundation sacrifices...
Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that
the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up
without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that
would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower
around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice
the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or
fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two
and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families
a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the
possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have
to think about the human factor here...
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>
> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
work.
> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
anyone noticing. I'm not saying I think the Princes were murdered and buried
in the Tower, I don't know what happened to them anymore than anyone else
does. But the remains of those two children can't be dismissed just because
we don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths. Everything has
to be taken into account. There's no evidence the boys were smuggled to
Burgund. Neither of them grew to manhood and came to England with an army to
take back their father's throne. (I've already submitted my opinion re
Perkin Warbeck. It's highly unlikely he was actually the young duke of
York.) The possibility that the skeletons were the remains of the princes
has to be taken into account.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:56:26 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower
has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even
way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a
child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what
have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the
back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could
have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I
suspect this was quite a regular happening.
Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they
could have been foundation sacrifices...
Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that
the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up
without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that
would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower
around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice
the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or
fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two
and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families
a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the
possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have
to think about the human factor here...
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>
> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> Langley/ E3 ..........
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > Subject: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> > >
> > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
work.
> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:22:31
--- In , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Indeed. William Montague, Earl of Salisbury, agreed to go along with the highly unlikely story that his wife, Joan (later called Fair Maid of Kent) came up with, that she had secretly married Thomas Holland when she was 12 years old, because when William returned from France, Joan was already pregnant with Holland's child. If William had not allowed his marriage to Joan to be annulled, and she gave birth to a boy (which she did) while still married to him, his heir would have been another man's son.
Katy
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Indeed. William Montague, Earl of Salisbury, agreed to go along with the highly unlikely story that his wife, Joan (later called Fair Maid of Kent) came up with, that she had secretly married Thomas Holland when she was 12 years old, because when William returned from France, Joan was already pregnant with Holland's child. If William had not allowed his marriage to Joan to be annulled, and she gave birth to a boy (which she did) while still married to him, his heir would have been another man's son.
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:29:46
If Montagu hadn't annulled his marriage, there's no reason to assume he'd
have acknowledged the child as his, especially if he knew it wasn't.
Karen
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:22:28 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Indeed. William Montague, Earl of Salisbury, agreed to go along with the
highly unlikely story that his wife, Joan (later called Fair Maid of Kent)
came up with, that she had secretly married Thomas Holland when she was 12
years old, because when William returned from France, Joan was already
pregnant with Holland's child. If William had not allowed his marriage to
Joan to be annulled, and she gave birth to a boy (which she did) while still
married to him, his heir would have been another man's son.
Katy
have acknowledged the child as his, especially if he knew it wasn't.
Karen
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:22:28 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Indeed. William Montague, Earl of Salisbury, agreed to go along with the
highly unlikely story that his wife, Joan (later called Fair Maid of Kent)
came up with, that she had secretly married Thomas Holland when she was 12
years old, because when William returned from France, Joan was already
pregnant with Holland's child. If William had not allowed his marriage to
Joan to be annulled, and she gave birth to a boy (which she did) while still
married to him, his heir would have been another man's son.
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 18:56:16
Yes Karen..it is true that the possibility of the bones being the remains of the princes have to be taken into consideration....I have done that...
What I am saying is that, me, personally, having given it plenty of thought, over many years, have reached a conclusion that I dont believe they are....That is as far any anyone can go really....to say what they think or what their theory is...That is why my posts contain plenty of 'maybe's' and 'possibly'....
Of course it is possible that Richard ordered their deaths...but the more I look into it and read the more I, personally, have to dismiss this story. Especially with More's version which clearly is a nonsense..It does not, to me tie in with other actions and attitudes he held. An example is his kindness to widows of men who had betrayed him.
Someone mentioned on here about taking a romantic view of things. I can assure anyone I am a bit too long in the tooth for that...my view of Richard comes are reading everything I could get my hands on about him over the last 25 years....And what a lot of time I would have wasted over the years if I had not formed opinions...and strong ones too...
Given that Henry on on winning Bosworth then dated his reign from the previous day. thus enabling him to be able to execute men as traitors that had fought for their lawful King tells me much about him and the kind of man he was than reading any amount of books about him...even Croyland was shocked by this....Well I know who, if I was transported back to those days, I would put my trust in. And his name dont begin with H...Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
> the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
> anyone noticing. I'm not saying I think the Princes were murdered and buried
> in the Tower, I don't know what happened to them anymore than anyone else
> does. But the remains of those two children can't be dismissed just because
> we don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths. Everything has
> to be taken into account. There's no evidence the boys were smuggled to
> Burgund. Neither of them grew to manhood and came to England with an army to
> take back their father's throne. (I've already submitted my opinion re
> Perkin Warbeck. It's highly unlikely he was actually the young duke of
> York.) The possibility that the skeletons were the remains of the princes
> has to be taken into account.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:56:26 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower
> has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even
> way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a
> child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what
> have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the
> back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could
> have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I
> suspect this was quite a regular happening.
>
> Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they
> could have been foundation sacrifices...
>
> Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that
> the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up
> without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that
> would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower
> around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice
> the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or
> fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two
> and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families
> a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the
> possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have
> to think about the human factor here...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@" <favefauve@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: favefauve@
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > > Subject: mtDNA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
> family."
> > > >
> > > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
> work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
> THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
What I am saying is that, me, personally, having given it plenty of thought, over many years, have reached a conclusion that I dont believe they are....That is as far any anyone can go really....to say what they think or what their theory is...That is why my posts contain plenty of 'maybe's' and 'possibly'....
Of course it is possible that Richard ordered their deaths...but the more I look into it and read the more I, personally, have to dismiss this story. Especially with More's version which clearly is a nonsense..It does not, to me tie in with other actions and attitudes he held. An example is his kindness to widows of men who had betrayed him.
Someone mentioned on here about taking a romantic view of things. I can assure anyone I am a bit too long in the tooth for that...my view of Richard comes are reading everything I could get my hands on about him over the last 25 years....And what a lot of time I would have wasted over the years if I had not formed opinions...and strong ones too...
Given that Henry on on winning Bosworth then dated his reign from the previous day. thus enabling him to be able to execute men as traitors that had fought for their lawful King tells me much about him and the kind of man he was than reading any amount of books about him...even Croyland was shocked by this....Well I know who, if I was transported back to those days, I would put my trust in. And his name dont begin with H...Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
> the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
> anyone noticing. I'm not saying I think the Princes were murdered and buried
> in the Tower, I don't know what happened to them anymore than anyone else
> does. But the remains of those two children can't be dismissed just because
> we don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths. Everything has
> to be taken into account. There's no evidence the boys were smuggled to
> Burgund. Neither of them grew to manhood and came to England with an army to
> take back their father's throne. (I've already submitted my opinion re
> Perkin Warbeck. It's highly unlikely he was actually the young duke of
> York.) The possibility that the skeletons were the remains of the princes
> has to be taken into account.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:56:26 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower
> has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even
> way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a
> child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what
> have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the
> back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could
> have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I
> suspect this was quite a regular happening.
>
> Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they
> could have been foundation sacrifices...
>
> Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that
> the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up
> without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that
> would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower
> around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice
> the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or
> fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two
> and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families
> a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the
> possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have
> to think about the human factor here...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@" <favefauve@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: favefauve@
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > > Subject: mtDNA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
> family."
> > > >
> > > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
> work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
> THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 19:03:43
Of course no man would knowingly allow it, but what would a wife do if she found herself pregnant and wasn't sure if it was husband's or lover's?
And I agree that the Blaybourne smear was extremely unlikely to be true. As you say, politically motivated.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
And I agree that the Blaybourne smear was extremely unlikely to be true. As you say, politically motivated.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 19:18:37
Joan of Kent's child was born towards the end of the Holland/Joan of
Kent/Montagu marriage business, I'm reliably informed, in 1350. The process
was begun three years earlier.
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:03:41 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Of course no man would knowingly allow it, but what would a wife do if she
found herself pregnant and wasn't sure if it was husband's or lover's?
And I agree that the Blaybourne smear was extremely unlikely to be true. As
you say, politically motivated.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kent/Montagu marriage business, I'm reliably informed, in 1350. The process
was begun three years earlier.
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:03:41 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Of course no man would knowingly allow it, but what would a wife do if she
found herself pregnant and wasn't sure if it was husband's or lover's?
And I agree that the Blaybourne smear was extremely unlikely to be true. As
you say, politically motivated.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: the bones in the Tower (was mtDNA)
2012-09-17 19:39:25
Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
Carol responds:
They were found ten feet under the foundations of some stairs, which is not quite the same as "buried in the Tower." It's hard {for me) to conceive of their having been placed there, secretly or otherwise, during the reigns of either Richard III or Henry VII. The seeming resemblance of this location to More's "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of stones" (the *first* burial place, later changed to an unknown location, according to More) is, I think, just coincidence. No heap of stones was found (it would have been hard to hide), and "at the foot of the stairs" is different from "under the foundations."
Based on this inaccessible location, I strongly suspect that the two skeletons predate the building of the Tower. But we can't know, of course,until their DNA is tested. And even if it should match that of the so-called Princes in the Tower, it wouldn't prove who killed them or when. Alas, though, just as the adult skeleton's scoliosis is being used to "prove" that Richard was a hunchback, the identification of the children's skeletons as those of his nephews would "prove" that he had them murdered despite all the improbabilities and absurdities in More's version of the tale.
Carol
>
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
Carol responds:
They were found ten feet under the foundations of some stairs, which is not quite the same as "buried in the Tower." It's hard {for me) to conceive of their having been placed there, secretly or otherwise, during the reigns of either Richard III or Henry VII. The seeming resemblance of this location to More's "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of stones" (the *first* burial place, later changed to an unknown location, according to More) is, I think, just coincidence. No heap of stones was found (it would have been hard to hide), and "at the foot of the stairs" is different from "under the foundations."
Based on this inaccessible location, I strongly suspect that the two skeletons predate the building of the Tower. But we can't know, of course,until their DNA is tested. And even if it should match that of the so-called Princes in the Tower, it wouldn't prove who killed them or when. Alas, though, just as the adult skeleton's scoliosis is being used to "prove" that Richard was a hunchback, the identification of the children's skeletons as those of his nephews would "prove" that he had them murdered despite all the improbabilities and absurdities in More's version of the tale.
Carol
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 19:48:49
God yes, the most contempible thing to do - it tells us evverything we need to know about Henry Tudor.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012, 18:56
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Yes Karen..it is true that the possibility of the bones being the remains of the princes have to be taken into consideration....I have done that...
What I am saying is that, me, personally, having given it plenty of thought, over many years, have reached a conclusion that I dont believe they are....That is as far any anyone can go really....to say what they think or what their theory is...That is why my posts contain plenty of 'maybe's' and 'possibly'....
Of course it is possible that Richard ordered their deaths...but the more I look into it and read the more I, personally, have to dismiss this story. Especially with More's version which clearly is a nonsense..It does not, to me tie in with other actions and attitudes he held. An example is his kindness to widows of men who had betrayed him.
Someone mentioned on here about taking a romantic view of things. I can assure anyone I am a bit too long in the tooth for that...my view of Richard comes are reading everything I could get my hands on about him over the last 25 years....And what a lot of time I would have wasted over the years if I had not formed opinions...and strong ones too...
Given that Henry on on winning Bosworth then dated his reign from the previous day. thus enabling him to be able to execute men as traitors that had fought for their lawful King tells me much about him and the kind of man he was than reading any amount of books about him...even Croyland was shocked by this....Well I know who, if I was transported back to those days, I would put my trust in. And his name dont begin with H...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
> the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
> anyone noticing. I'm not saying I think the Princes were murdered and buried
> in the Tower, I don't know what happened to them anymore than anyone else
> does. But the remains of those two children can't be dismissed just because
> we don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths. Everything has
> to be taken into account. There's no evidence the boys were smuggled to
> Burgund. Neither of them grew to manhood and came to England with an army to
> take back their father's throne. (I've already submitted my opinion re
> Perkin Warbeck. It's highly unlikely he was actually the young duke of
> York.) The possibility that the skeletons were the remains of the princes
> has to be taken into account.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:56:26 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower
> has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even
> way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a
> child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what
> have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the
> back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could
> have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I
> suspect this was quite a regular happening.
>
> Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they
> could have been foundation sacrifices...
>
> Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that
> the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up
> without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that
> would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower
> around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice
> the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or
> fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two
> and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families
> a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the
> possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have
> to think about the human factor here...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@" <favefauve@>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: favefauve@
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > > Subject: mtDNA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
> family."
> > > >
> > > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
> work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
> THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012, 18:56
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Yes Karen..it is true that the possibility of the bones being the remains of the princes have to be taken into consideration....I have done that...
What I am saying is that, me, personally, having given it plenty of thought, over many years, have reached a conclusion that I dont believe they are....That is as far any anyone can go really....to say what they think or what their theory is...That is why my posts contain plenty of 'maybe's' and 'possibly'....
Of course it is possible that Richard ordered their deaths...but the more I look into it and read the more I, personally, have to dismiss this story. Especially with More's version which clearly is a nonsense..It does not, to me tie in with other actions and attitudes he held. An example is his kindness to widows of men who had betrayed him.
Someone mentioned on here about taking a romantic view of things. I can assure anyone I am a bit too long in the tooth for that...my view of Richard comes are reading everything I could get my hands on about him over the last 25 years....And what a lot of time I would have wasted over the years if I had not formed opinions...and strong ones too...
Given that Henry on on winning Bosworth then dated his reign from the previous day. thus enabling him to be able to execute men as traitors that had fought for their lawful King tells me much about him and the kind of man he was than reading any amount of books about him...even Croyland was shocked by this....Well I know who, if I was transported back to those days, I would put my trust in. And his name dont begin with H...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
> the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
> anyone noticing. I'm not saying I think the Princes were murdered and buried
> in the Tower, I don't know what happened to them anymore than anyone else
> does. But the remains of those two children can't be dismissed just because
> we don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths. Everything has
> to be taken into account. There's no evidence the boys were smuggled to
> Burgund. Neither of them grew to manhood and came to England with an army to
> take back their father's throne. (I've already submitted my opinion re
> Perkin Warbeck. It's highly unlikely he was actually the young duke of
> York.) The possibility that the skeletons were the remains of the princes
> has to be taken into account.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:56:26 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower
> has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even
> way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a
> child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what
> have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the
> back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could
> have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I
> suspect this was quite a regular happening.
>
> Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they
> could have been foundation sacrifices...
>
> Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that
> the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up
> without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that
> would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower
> around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice
> the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or
> fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two
> and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families
> a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the
> possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have
> to think about the human factor here...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@" <favefauve@>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: favefauve@
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: favefauve@
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > > > Subject: mtDNA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > > > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
> family."
> > > >
> > > > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's
> work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
> THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: the bones in the Tower (was mtDNA)
2012-09-17 19:51:37
Carol..it is probably the most unfortunate coincidence in history that some bones were found in a place...'under some stairs' bore similarities with the place mentioned by More in his rather daft essay...'meetly in the ground'...That he later went on to say that Richard had them removed because he later had qualms about their burying place not being suitable for the sons of a king....although according to More he suffered no qualms about having them smothered to death by some louts...does not seem to have registered at all....Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> They were found ten feet under the foundations of some stairs, which is not quite the same as "buried in the Tower." It's hard {for me) to conceive of their having been placed there, secretly or otherwise, during the reigns of either Richard III or Henry VII. The seeming resemblance of this location to More's "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of stones" (the *first* burial place, later changed to an unknown location, according to More) is, I think, just coincidence. No heap of stones was found (it would have been hard to hide), and "at the foot of the stairs" is different from "under the foundations."
>
> Based on this inaccessible location, I strongly suspect that the two skeletons predate the building of the Tower. But we can't know, of course,until their DNA is tested. And even if it should match that of the so-called Princes in the Tower, it wouldn't prove who killed them or when. Alas, though, just as the adult skeleton's scoliosis is being used to "prove" that Richard was a hunchback, the identification of the children's skeletons as those of his nephews would "prove" that he had them murdered despite all the improbabilities and absurdities in More's version of the tale.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> They were found ten feet under the foundations of some stairs, which is not quite the same as "buried in the Tower." It's hard {for me) to conceive of their having been placed there, secretly or otherwise, during the reigns of either Richard III or Henry VII. The seeming resemblance of this location to More's "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of stones" (the *first* burial place, later changed to an unknown location, according to More) is, I think, just coincidence. No heap of stones was found (it would have been hard to hide), and "at the foot of the stairs" is different from "under the foundations."
>
> Based on this inaccessible location, I strongly suspect that the two skeletons predate the building of the Tower. But we can't know, of course,until their DNA is tested. And even if it should match that of the so-called Princes in the Tower, it wouldn't prove who killed them or when. Alas, though, just as the adult skeleton's scoliosis is being used to "prove" that Richard was a hunchback, the identification of the children's skeletons as those of his nephews would "prove" that he had them murdered despite all the improbabilities and absurdities in More's version of the tale.
>
> Carol
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 19:54:54
Especially when that property and titles potentially included the crown of England
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012, 18:00
Subject: Re: mtDNA
It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Karen
From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com" <mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012, 18:00
Subject: Re: mtDNA
It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
Karen
From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com" <mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 20:21:24
Isnt there a story that Cecily flew into a rage when she found out who Edward had married and threatened to say that he was illigitimate.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Especially when that property and titles potentially included the crown of England
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012, 18:00
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com" <mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Especially when that property and titles potentially included the crown of England
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012, 18:00
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
> It would be great to get a chance to clear Cecily Nevill's name. That
> charge, of infidelity and passing a lover's child off as a husband's, is
> levelled at too many women in history. It's usually a cheap shot, rumours
> spread at the time to deliberately blacken a woman's reputation. The actions
> of Edward IV's father (the Duke of York and not Blaybourne) towards his son
> are all that's needed to set aside that particular politically motivated
> smear. I can't think of a single 15th century nobleman who'd knowingly allow
> his family's property and titles to be inherited by another man's son.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com" <mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:23 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
> Of course the male DNA could be obtained from the tomb of Edward IV in St
> Georges - but I can't imagine the authorities ever allowing that.
> Then we'd know too if he was a Brabourne!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-17 21:00:00
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
> the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
> anyone noticing.
It wouldn't have been from the Tower onto a ship. The Tower was above old London Bridge and beyond the range of ships. If they left by water, it would have been onto a barge or even a rowboat to a barge standing out in the river. The Water Gate got a lot of use, so a departure through it would not have been remarkable, even at night. The Thames is wide and at night, in those days, it would have been very dark on the river. If anyone did notice some activity at the Water Gate, it would have been awfully hard to notice any particulars.
I read somewhere -- I first got interested in Richard III, and by extension, the Middle Ages in General, about 30 years ago, and since I didn't know anyone who shared my interests, I didn't make notes of what I was reading where in order to attribute my information -- that the last place anyone saw the boys was in the chamber containing the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the Water Gate. If true, that would be a logical place to wait, if you were going out via that gate. (You can find videos of that chamber on You tube...look for Traitors Gate.)
I think they could have left via the Water Gate, onto a barge, and thence downriver to a ship or transfer over land to a place of hiding or another port.
Katy
>
> Eileen, you suggested earlier that the boys could have been smuggled out of
> the Tower and onto a ship. I'm not sure if that could have happened without
> anyone noticing.
It wouldn't have been from the Tower onto a ship. The Tower was above old London Bridge and beyond the range of ships. If they left by water, it would have been onto a barge or even a rowboat to a barge standing out in the river. The Water Gate got a lot of use, so a departure through it would not have been remarkable, even at night. The Thames is wide and at night, in those days, it would have been very dark on the river. If anyone did notice some activity at the Water Gate, it would have been awfully hard to notice any particulars.
I read somewhere -- I first got interested in Richard III, and by extension, the Middle Ages in General, about 30 years ago, and since I didn't know anyone who shared my interests, I didn't make notes of what I was reading where in order to attribute my information -- that the last place anyone saw the boys was in the chamber containing the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the Water Gate. If true, that would be a logical place to wait, if you were going out via that gate. (You can find videos of that chamber on You tube...look for Traitors Gate.)
I think they could have left via the Water Gate, onto a barge, and thence downriver to a ship or transfer over land to a place of hiding or another port.
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 02:26:21
Does the present Duke of Beaufort have sons? Even if the Duke didn't want to, he couldn't stop his son/s.
Helen
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
----- Original Message -----
From: mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Helen
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
----- Original Message -----
From: mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 10:02:46
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00055826&tree=LEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Somerset,_11th_Duke_of_Beaufort
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00055826&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
He is 84, has three sons and two agnatic (male-line) grandsons.
----- Original Message -----
From: Helen Rowe
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Does the present Duke of Beaufort have sons? Even if the Duke didn't want to, he couldn't stop his son/s.
Helen
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
----- Original Message -----
From: mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Somerset,_11th_Duke_of_Beaufort
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00055826&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
He is 84, has three sons and two agnatic (male-line) grandsons.
----- Original Message -----
From: Helen Rowe
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Does the present Duke of Beaufort have sons? Even if the Duke didn't want to, he couldn't stop his son/s.
Helen
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I think he has refused in the past but ought to be persuaded - it is his duty as a Plantagenet, even through bastardy, to help identify or eliminate some of the last legitimate Plantagenets.
----- Original Message -----
From: mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Sorry - yes, of course Beaufort. I was half asleep I think!
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather Langley/ E3 ..........
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: favefauve@
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> > Subject: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> > from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> > John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >
> > This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work. Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 14:22:10
On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Not a chance!!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
Not a chance!!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 14:25:58
And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been properly examined and never dated.
And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
Paul
On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>
> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: favefauve@...
>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>>
>>
>>
>> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> Langley/ E3 ..........
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: favefauve@
>>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
>>> Subject: mtDNA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
>>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>>>
>>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
Paul
On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>
> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: favefauve@...
>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>>
>>
>>
>> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> Langley/ E3 ..........
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: favefauve@
>>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
>>> Subject: mtDNA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
>>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>>>
>>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 14:26:58
here you go again Eileen, echoing my own thoughts! :-)
Paul
On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:56, EileenB wrote:
> Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I suspect this was quite a regular happening.
>
> Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they could have been foundation sacrifices...
>
> Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have to think about the human factor here...
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
>> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
>> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
>> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
>> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
>> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>>
>> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
>> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
>> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
>> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
>> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>>
>> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
>> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
>> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: favefauve@
>>> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
>> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>>>
>>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
>> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
>> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
>> Langley/ E3 ..........
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: favefauve@
>>>> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
>>>> Subject: mtDNA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
>>>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
>> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>>>>
>>>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
>> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
>> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:56, EileenB wrote:
> Im pretty certain that over the what...1000 years... or so that the Tower has stood that children have died in the environs of that place..and even way before that....They could be Roman...only very recently the bones of a child was found near Hadrians Wall, not sure of exact location, in what what have been the barracks of a Roman fort. The hands were tied behind the back. How this poor child died is a mystery but it was suggested they could have been a slave....or the victim of a murder that was covered up...I suspect this was quite a regular happening.
>
> Maybe they were Norman......they were found very deep down...Possibly they could have been foundation sacrifices...
>
> Nothing will convince me that if they had been murdered around 1484 that the burial of two children inside the Tower could have been covered up without someone noticing. And that is casting aside the noise/upheaval that would have ensued. Could the people that lived and worked in the Tower around about that time really have been that stupid that they did not notice the disappearance of the boys and evidence of newly turned over soil or fresh mortar around brickwork signifying a possible burial...and not put two and two together. Was no-one tempted to give themselves and their families a better quality of life by getting a big reward by alerting Henry to the possibility of the whereabouts of the bodies of the boys. Again...we have to think about the human factor here...
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
>> Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
>> Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
>> somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
>> and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
>> The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>>
>> Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
>> side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
>> prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
>> Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
>> cellar in Ekaterinburg.
>>
>> And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
>> be dated to 1st century Palestine?
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
>> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: favefauve@
>>> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
>> in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
>>>
>>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
>> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
>> E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
>> Langley/ E3 ..........
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: favefauve@
>>>> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
>>>> Subject: mtDNA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
>>>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
>> saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
>>>>
>>>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
>> Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
>> could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 14:33:53
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 16:07:20
If anybody has based their belief these are the bones of Edward's sons because of More's story they miss the point....More said that the bones were removed from the first burial place, at 'the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground, under a great heap of stones' by a lone priest because Richard, after having them smothered to death baulked at "the burying in so vile a corner, saying he would have them buried in a meeter place because they were king's sons"...To remove them from under one set of stairs and re-bury them under yet another set of stairs seems rather daft, pointless and a complete waste of time...Eileen..
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been properly examined and never dated.
> And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: favefauve@
> >> To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >>
> >> --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>> To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> >>> Subject: mtDNA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> >>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >>>
> >>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been properly examined and never dated.
> And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: favefauve@
> >> To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >>
> >> --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/ great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>> To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> >>> Subject: mtDNA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> >>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen family."
> >>>
> >>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow. THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 16:21:43
More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but
because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To
me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his
sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:07:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
If anybody has based their belief these are the bones of Edward's sons
because of More's story they miss the point....More said that the bones were
removed from the first burial place, at 'the stair foot, meetly deep in the
ground, under a great heap of stones' by a lone priest because Richard,
after having them smothered to death baulked at "the burying in so vile a
corner, saying he would have them buried in a meeter place because they were
king's sons"...To remove them from under one set of stairs and re-bury them
under yet another set of stairs seems rather daft, pointless and a complete
waste of time...Eileen..
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of
Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the
Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been
properly examined and never dated.
> And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of
the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the
time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: favefauve@
> >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/
great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> >>> Subject: mtDNA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> >>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >>>
> >>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To
me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his
sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:07:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
If anybody has based their belief these are the bones of Edward's sons
because of More's story they miss the point....More said that the bones were
removed from the first burial place, at 'the stair foot, meetly deep in the
ground, under a great heap of stones' by a lone priest because Richard,
after having them smothered to death baulked at "the burying in so vile a
corner, saying he would have them buried in a meeter place because they were
king's sons"...To remove them from under one set of stairs and re-bury them
under yet another set of stairs seems rather daft, pointless and a complete
waste of time...Eileen..
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of
Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the
Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been
properly examined and never dated.
> And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of
the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the
time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: favefauve@
> >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/
great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> >>> Subject: mtDNA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> >>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >>>
> >>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 16:27:42
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 16:44:52
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams.
I've encountered a little of this on other websites, but not so much here. And it's really been from a lack of understanding of the scholarship behind the dig (e.g. "It's a church, so of course there'll be lots of bodies"). Someone else, an archaeologist, complained that the entire site wasn't being excavated and criticised the involvement of Channel 4. Again, that's a lack of understanding of the narrow and unique time-window, and the difficulty in obtaining funding.
But, honestly, most comment I've seen has been overwhelmingly positive.
> There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
While I'd be fascinated to see a computer-modelled facial reconstruction, I don't have any interest in seeing photographs of the remains. But I suppose that will be hard to avoid when findings are published in academic journals.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:27
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory
that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
I've encountered a little of this on other websites, but not so much here. And it's really been from a lack of understanding of the scholarship behind the dig (e.g. "It's a church, so of course there'll be lots of bodies"). Someone else, an archaeologist, complained that the entire site wasn't being excavated and criticised the involvement of Channel 4. Again, that's a lack of understanding of the narrow and unique time-window, and the difficulty in obtaining funding.
But, honestly, most comment I've seen has been overwhelmingly positive.
> There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
While I'd be fascinated to see a computer-modelled facial reconstruction, I don't have any interest in seeing photographs of the remains. But I suppose that will be hard to avoid when findings are published in academic journals.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:27
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory
that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 17:04:15
> Shakespeare might have used More as one of his
> sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Maybe he did, but I've always been intrigued by this little exchange, which seems to come out of nowhere. Not that I'm claiming Shakespeare as a closet Ricardian (!), but it's an interesting little meditation:
Prince Edward. I do not like the Tower, of any place.
Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?
Duke of Buckingham. He did, my gracious lord, begin that place;
Which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified.
Prince Edward. Is it upon record, or else reported
Successively from age to age, he built it?
Duke of Buckingham. Upon record, my gracious lord.
Prince Edward. But say, my lord, it were not register'd,
Methinks the truth should live from age to age,
As 'twere retail'd to all posterity,
Even to the general all-ending day.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: mtDNA
More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but
because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To
me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his
sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:07:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
If anybody has based their belief these are the bones of Edward's sons
because of More's story they miss the point....More said that the bones were
removed from the first burial place, at 'the stair foot, meetly deep in the
ground, under a great heap of stones' by a lone priest because Richard,
after having them smothered to death baulked at "the burying in so vile a
corner, saying he would have them buried in a meeter place because they were
king's sons"...To remove them from under one set of stairs and re-bury them
under yet another set of stairs seems rather daft, pointless and a complete
waste of time...Eileen..
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of
Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the
Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been
properly examined and never dated.
> And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of
the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the
time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: favefauve@
> >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/
great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> >>> Subject: mtDNA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> >>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >>>
> >>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Maybe he did, but I've always been intrigued by this little exchange, which seems to come out of nowhere. Not that I'm claiming Shakespeare as a closet Ricardian (!), but it's an interesting little meditation:
Prince Edward. I do not like the Tower, of any place.
Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?
Duke of Buckingham. He did, my gracious lord, begin that place;
Which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified.
Prince Edward. Is it upon record, or else reported
Successively from age to age, he built it?
Duke of Buckingham. Upon record, my gracious lord.
Prince Edward. But say, my lord, it were not register'd,
Methinks the truth should live from age to age,
As 'twere retail'd to all posterity,
Even to the general all-ending day.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: mtDNA
More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but
because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To
me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his
sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:07:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: mtDNA
If anybody has based their belief these are the bones of Edward's sons
because of More's story they miss the point....More said that the bones were
removed from the first burial place, at 'the stair foot, meetly deep in the
ground, under a great heap of stones' by a lone priest because Richard,
after having them smothered to death baulked at "the burying in so vile a
corner, saying he would have them buried in a meeter place because they were
king's sons"...To remove them from under one set of stairs and re-bury them
under yet another set of stairs seems rather daft, pointless and a complete
waste of time...Eileen..
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And naturally over the two thousand year history of the site only the sons of
Edward IV could be buried there! The bones in the urn are possibly pigs from the
Roman time mixed in with those of some poor teenage girl. They haven't been
properly examined and never dated.
> And as Annette says, and others echo, who would dig so deeply in the middle of
the night to secretly bury a body when so many people lived in the Tower at the
time? It is a ridiculous idea of More's and should be given no credence at all.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > Yes, the fact that the remains of two children were found buried in the
> > Tower does suggest that, at some point, two children were buried in the
> > Tower. I'm not sure they can be dismissed quite so readily.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:21:01 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to think that the princes were sent away for their safety, but
> > somehow it doesn't seem likely. They were old enough to know who they were
> > and to feel resentment, to be a focus of rebellion.
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Whenever DNA has solved an historical problem it's always come down on the
> > side that we 'romantics' would not wish. The boy who died in the Temple
> > prison in Paris WAS the Dauphin, so he didn't escape as many believed; Anna
> > Anderson wasn't Anastasia - and all the Russian Imperial Family died in the
> > cellar in Ekaterinburg.
> >
> > And I know it's not DNA, but didn't everyone hope that the Turin Shroud was
> > be dated to 1st century Palestine?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> BEAUFORT - an unbroken male line from Edward III.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: favefauve@
> >> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: mtDNA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Duke of Bedford has declined to give a DNA sample. Maybe not sure that
> > in 500+ years there hasn't been a cuckoo in the nest!?
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Y-chromosome? That is easy - blackmail the Duke of Beaufort or test
> > E4/ Clarence/ Rutland/ their father/ grandfather Cambridge/
great-grandfather
> > Langley/ E3 ..........
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:37 PM
> >>> Subject: mtDNA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from Annette "(2) An independent researcher who knew nothing of
> >>> John's discovery of the mtDNA of Joy Ibsen has recently got in touch
> > saying that he, too, has traced Anne of York's descendants to the Ibsen
family."
> >>>
> >>> This is great news! Independent confirmation of John Ashdown-Hill's work.
> > Let's hope that the Y chromosome (male) DNA can also be recovered somehow.
THAT
> > could be tested against the urn bones, if permission is ever given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 17:58:14
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
Katy
>
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 19:01:15
Annette,
I like that "our warrior knight" ! I hope by the time I am able to make my planned trip to England next year, I will be able to visit Richard's grave.
Vickie
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory
that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
I like that "our warrior knight" ! I hope by the time I am able to make my planned trip to England next year, I will be able to visit Richard's grave.
Vickie
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory
that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 19:10:27
yes I vote for optimism too... & yes the coffers of Leicester Council WILL
benefit from this & so will the businesses in the surrounding areas: B&B's
Hotels, Pubs, taxis, etc etc...
Thanks for the update Annette...
Lisa
On 18 September 2012 15:01, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Annette,
> I like that "our warrior knight" ! I hope by the time I am able to make
> my planned trip to England next year, I will be able to visit Richard's
> grave.
> Vickie
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project,
> which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa
> kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives
> she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
> Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to
> acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national
> and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there
> ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of
> them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and
> interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
>
> Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's
> foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class
> archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be
> attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or
> indeed their own reputation.
>
> The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible
> conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and
> easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park,
> rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to
> preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to
> remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the
> choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any
> photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
>
> Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social
> services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year -
> the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are
> vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
>
> Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around
> the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous
> understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and
> uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before
> being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually
> the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in
> some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested
> parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the
> original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal
> remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of
> individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals
> as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was
> so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and
> which supported the theory
> that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'),
> which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible
> to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright
> expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as
> Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited
> chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at
> death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation
> in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if
> any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
>
> By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars
> was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description
> of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the
> church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of
> Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his
> garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression
> analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be
> spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly
> controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and
> having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course
> objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it
> seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II
> was in Westminster Abbey.
>
> The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's
> remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a
> fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The
> Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but
> apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would
> be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
>
> And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation -
> this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money,
> research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there
> were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me
> about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
>
> OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be
> forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit
> Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and
> cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary
> commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all
> forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: HI
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and
> DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in
> terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase
> for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a
> council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a
> considerable scope for error.
>
> Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as
> suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial
> reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's
> portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University
> do them, underway?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
> >
> > > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Not a chance!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
benefit from this & so will the businesses in the surrounding areas: B&B's
Hotels, Pubs, taxis, etc etc...
Thanks for the update Annette...
Lisa
On 18 September 2012 15:01, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Annette,
> I like that "our warrior knight" ! I hope by the time I am able to make
> my planned trip to England next year, I will be able to visit Richard's
> grave.
> Vickie
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project,
> which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa
> kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives
> she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
> Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to
> acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national
> and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there
> ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of
> them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and
> interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
>
> Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's
> foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class
> archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be
> attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or
> indeed their own reputation.
>
> The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible
> conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and
> easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park,
> rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to
> preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to
> remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the
> choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any
> photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
>
> Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social
> services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year -
> the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are
> vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
>
> Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around
> the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous
> understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and
> uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before
> being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually
> the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in
> some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested
> parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the
> original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal
> remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of
> individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals
> as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was
> so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and
> which supported the theory
> that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'),
> which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible
> to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright
> expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as
> Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited
> chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at
> death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation
> in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if
> any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
>
> By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars
> was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description
> of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the
> church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of
> Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his
> garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression
> analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be
> spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly
> controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and
> having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course
> objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it
> seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II
> was in Westminster Abbey.
>
> The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's
> remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a
> fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The
> Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but
> apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would
> be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
>
> And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation -
> this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money,
> research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there
> were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me
> about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
>
> OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be
> forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit
> Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and
> cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary
> commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all
> forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: HI
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and
> DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in
> terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase
> for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a
> council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a
> considerable scope for error.
>
> Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as
> suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial
> reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's
> portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University
> do them, underway?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
> >
> > > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Not a chance!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 19:43:40
Here, here Annette, I believe it is 'our' king, and like you think that the sensitivity surrounding the find has been amazing, despite the media digs at times. In this day and age tourism is a fact of life. I for one will want to visit his final resting place and hope that it does him justice.
I say leave it to the experts and hopefully it will be the outcome we all want. I know from a friend who had to have DNA testing done some time ago that even if you know for sure the parentage etc, it never finds 100 per cent.
I do think that a computer enhancement of the skull might be interesting, to see how alike the face is to the pictures, but we must remember these are human bones, I also think that any service if it is forthcoming should be in the religion of his day, I am not a catholic but his faith would most certainly have been so.
Thank you for the numerous updates, it know doubt is eating into your own time, but I for one greatly appreciate it.
M
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:27
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory
that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
I say leave it to the experts and hopefully it will be the outcome we all want. I know from a friend who had to have DNA testing done some time ago that even if you know for sure the parentage etc, it never finds 100 per cent.
I do think that a computer enhancement of the skull might be interesting, to see how alike the face is to the pictures, but we must remember these are human bones, I also think that any service if it is forthcoming should be in the religion of his day, I am not a catholic but his faith would most certainly have been so.
Thank you for the numerous updates, it know doubt is eating into your own time, but I for one greatly appreciate it.
M
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:27
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Unfortunately the chap in the Guildhall at Leicester had not bothered to acquaint himself with what was going on under his nose. The local, national and international press, radio and TV were repeatedly reporting that there ARE living descendants of Richard's sister Anne of York, and in fact one of them visited the archaeological site twice, was photographed and interviewed, and even posed giving a DNA sample!
Obviously there are no guarantees with DNA matching and nothing's foolproof, but the University of Leicester and its world-class archaeologists would never have announced that DNA matching would be attempted if they felt it was a waste of time, precious resources, or indeed their own reputation.
The human remains presently being examined did not lie in terrible conditions, they are relatively well preserved, and the ground was dry and easy to examine. Indeed the fact that the site has been used as a car park, rather than being built up, is a massive bonus. The asphalt managed to preserve what was left of the Greyfriars, and enabled our warrior knight to remain peacefully for hundreds of years where he was laid to rest in the choir of the friary church. There isn't at this point (or shouldn't be) any photograph of the remains. I haven't seen them myself.
Access to the area is limited because these are the council's social services offices, as I believe Ricardians have known for many a long year - the work done there is sensitive and the people they deal with are vulnerable, so public access has to be restricted.
Someone mentioned objections to the bones in the urn. They centre around the following: (1) Their identification was based on (an erroneous understanding of) Thomas More's story, which is unlikely and uncorroborated. (2) They lay for several days on a rubbish heap before being retrieved, so it isn't certain that the ones retrieved were actually the ones originally found under the staircase. (3) They were then kept in some unknown location(s), and allegedly passed around among interested parties, for some four years - again, who knows whether after all that the original bones ended up in Westminster Abbey. (4) We know there are animal remains among them, and the MNI was never established (= minimum number of individuals) so there may in fact be bones from more than two individuals as well as several animals. (5) Claims were made in 1933 that there was so-called evidence which supported the story of murder ('bloodstains'), and which supported the theory
that they were related ('hypodontia' and 'similarities in Wormian bones'), which were later discredited and retracted. (6) In 1933 it was impossible to establish gender, antiquity and age at death, although Tanner and Wright expressed themselves satisfied that they were males of the same ages as Edward IV's sons in 1483. (7) One of the children's skulls exhibited chronic osteosis if not osteomyelitis. In attempting to pinpoint age at death, some sort of allowance would have been necessary for the retardation in development caused by this condition. The amount of the allowance, if any, and its appropriateness to the condition, is unknown.
By contrast, the resting place of Richard III at the Leicester Greyfriars was mentioned in more records than Rous, we have details and a description of the tomb at the Greyfriars paid for by Henry VII and erected in the church, and we know its inscription. We even know that Alderman Herrick of Leicester, who purchased the ruined Greyfriars site, raised a column in his garden to commemorate that Richard III was buried there. Map regression analysis was undertaken to pinpoint the location (and has proved to be spot-on). The exhumation at Leicester was performed under strictly controlled conditions with all parties wearing gloves and face masks and having had their own DNA recorded in case of contamination. Of course objections may still be raised, because people love to find fault. But it seems to me that we are on much safer ground in Leicester than Charles II was in Westminster Abbey.
The Richard III Society has always known that the story of Richard's remains being 'dug up and thrown into the river by a jeering mob' was a fable, and in fact it can be traced specifically to John Speede. The Society has even erected plaques in Leicester debunking the story, but apparently there are still people who cling to it. If nothing else, I would be gratified to see that one knocked on the head!
And yes, commercial interests and tourism do enter into the equation - this wasn't funded by a Ricardian millionaire, it used public money, research funds and civic resources that have to be accounted for, there were disruptions, and at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for this at a time of cutbacks.
OK, maybe this knight's mortal remains will be entombed and then he'll be forgotten. On the other hand, countless numbers of people constantly visit Britain's historic sites and churches and are glad we still preserve and cherish our past. Maybe in ten years time we'll have an anniversary commemoration of the dig for King Richard - we'll see then whether it's all forgotten, shan't we? Meanwhile, I vote for optimism. Why not?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
I'm inclined to agree with Paul. Fingerprinting has been discredited and DNA may not be as fool proof as some think. Especially after 500 years in terrible conditions. The supposed bones of Edward V were under a staircase for God knows how long and supposed bones of Richard under what are now a council offices car park. (How have the mighty fallen!) Carbon dating has a considerable scope for error.
Some wag outside suggested that these Richard remains might be restored as suggested by the Bionic man or Jurassic park. Dreamers! But a facial reconstruction of the skull is a good idea if it matches Richard's portraits. Well there you are. Is such a reconstruction: Dundee University do them, underway?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:21, favefauve@... wrote:
>
> > The bones in the Westminster urn could be them, I'm afraid.
>
> Not a chance!!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 19:55:55
Annette wrote -"at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for
this at a time of cutbacks."
Oh! How can anyone complain about expense when we have just spent billions of the tax payers money on that exhibition of running and jumping about in East London?
As if this wasn't so much more interesting!!
this at a time of cutbacks."
Oh! How can anyone complain about expense when we have just spent billions of the tax payers money on that exhibition of running and jumping about in East London?
As if this wasn't so much more interesting!!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 20:04:56
That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been found and I am scared something will go wrong.
Liz
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
Subject: Re: mtDNA
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
Katy
Liz
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
Subject: Re: mtDNA
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 20:14:57
Well I went to the Paralympics and it was fabulous. That said, this is better!
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 19:55
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Annette wrote -"at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for
this at a time of cutbacks."
Oh! How can anyone complain about expense when we have just spent billions of the tax payers money on that exhibition of running and jumping about in East London?
As if this wasn't so much more interesting!!
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 19:55
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Annette wrote -"at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for
this at a time of cutbacks."
Oh! How can anyone complain about expense when we have just spent billions of the tax payers money on that exhibition of running and jumping about in East London?
As if this wasn't so much more interesting!!
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 20:50:16
Liz...you must stop worrying...all will be well. This is our Richard....no mistake about it. Remember...the choir is the correct place, the battle trauma is confirmation, and the spinal curvature the proof.....
And soon we will be able to visit Richard's new and final burial place to pay our respects....
Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been found and I am scared something will go wrong.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
>
> Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
>
> However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
And soon we will be able to visit Richard's new and final burial place to pay our respects....
Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been found and I am scared something will go wrong.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
>
> Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
>
> However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 21:05:33
Well I'm convinced it IS him but - jsut call me glass half empty ...
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 20:50
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Liz...you must stop worrying...all will be well. This is our Richard....no mistake about it. Remember...the choir is the correct place, the battle trauma is confirmation, and the spinal curvature the proof.....
And soon we will be able to visit Richard's new and final burial place to pay our respects....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been found and I am scared something will go wrong.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
>
> Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
>
> However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 20:50
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Liz...you must stop worrying...all will be well. This is our Richard....no mistake about it. Remember...the choir is the correct place, the battle trauma is confirmation, and the spinal curvature the proof.....
And soon we will be able to visit Richard's new and final burial place to pay our respects....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been found and I am scared something will go wrong.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project, which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
>
> Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
>
> However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his remains.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-18 22:16:51
Just thinking about that gives me chills!
I am hoping against hope that I may be able to start a graduate study
program in Britain within the next two years. Ideally, I would be able to be
there for Richard’s funeral. If not, I certainly will make a pilgrimage to
his resting place. I, like you, am virtually certain that this is really
Richard. And it’s something I never thought I’d live to see!
I wonder if they will take subscriptions for his monument? I’d be honoured
to make a donation.
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Liz...you must stop worrying...all will be well. This is our Richard....no
mistake about it. Remember...the choir is the correct place, the battle
trauma is confirmation, and the spinal curvature the proof.....
And soon we will be able to visit Richard's new and final burial place to
pay our respects....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been
found and I am scared something will go wrong.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson"
<email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project,
which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa
kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives
she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
>
> Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone
that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get
one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it
somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
>
> However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial
evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his
remains.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am hoping against hope that I may be able to start a graduate study
program in Britain within the next two years. Ideally, I would be able to be
there for Richard’s funeral. If not, I certainly will make a pilgrimage to
his resting place. I, like you, am virtually certain that this is really
Richard. And it’s something I never thought I’d live to see!
I wonder if they will take subscriptions for his monument? I’d be honoured
to make a donation.
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Liz...you must stop worrying...all will be well. This is our Richard....no
mistake about it. Remember...the choir is the correct place, the battle
trauma is confirmation, and the spinal curvature the proof.....
And soon we will be able to visit Richard's new and final burial place to
pay our respects....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's exactly how I feel - it seems to good to be true that he has been
found and I am scared something will go wrong.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 17:58
> Subject: Re: mtDNA
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson"
<email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really sorry to see a tone of pessimism creep in about this project,
which so far has literally exceeded our wildest dreams. I'm glad Philippa
kept her gaze firmly set on the positives, and resisted the many negatives
she encountered over the past 3-4 years.
>
>
> Annette, I think -- hope -- that the fatalistic, even pessimistic tone
that may lie over some contributions here are a case of not wanting to get
one's hopes up too high, because the let-down would be too painful if it
somehow comes out that it is not Richard after all.
>
> However, I'm very excited because it seems that the circumstantial
evidence is already overwhelmingly on the side of it truly being his
remains.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-19 15:47:27
Over here they told us that the british people had at last become enthusiastic about Olympia, but from my penpals I had rather letters of scarcely hidden ressentiments.
I had been wondering about the same thing and found it quite "sobering"...on the other side, while england supports the greek heritage we support greek. I don´t know which will have a more lasting effect. ;-D
But enough of that, I agree it is great that the founding for the research stood in time. I´m sure that Leicester will profit ftom it as well.
Marion Z
--- In , P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> Annette wrote -"at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for
> this at a time of cutbacks."
>
> Oh! How can anyone complain about expense when we have just spent billions of the tax payers money on that exhibition of running and jumping about in East London?
> As if this wasn't so much more interesting!!
>
>
>
I had been wondering about the same thing and found it quite "sobering"...on the other side, while england supports the greek heritage we support greek. I don´t know which will have a more lasting effect. ;-D
But enough of that, I agree it is great that the founding for the research stood in time. I´m sure that Leicester will profit ftom it as well.
Marion Z
--- In , P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> Annette wrote -"at least one Leicester resident complained to me about money being found for
> this at a time of cutbacks."
>
> Oh! How can anyone complain about expense when we have just spent billions of the tax payers money on that exhibition of running and jumping about in East London?
> As if this wasn't so much more interesting!!
>
>
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-19 23:09:13
aren Clark wrote:
>
> More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Carol responds:
I agree completely though I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?
Regarding Shakespeare, I suspect that he spotted the irony but was more interested in the black comic exaggeration, which suited his own purposes. (His having Richard as Duke of Gloucester fight in the Battle of Wakefield, which in fact occurred when he was eight years old, was my first clue that Shakespeare had played fast and loose with history, in essence trading Richard's age with his brother Edmund's.) We can't, of course, know what Shakespeare thought, but More handed him the makings of a black comic caricature to which he added his own all too memorable flourishes.
To return to More, his elaborately incorrect statement of Edward's age at death and his placing Richard on the privy when the "secret page" reports that Tyrell is outside his door are among the many clues that, yes, we should not take this work seriously. (If the page is so "secret" that More doesn't know his identity, how could he know the equally secret conversation, both other participants being dead?)
By the way, I checked out your lively and interesting blog. Loved your review of Philippa Gregory's book. If you haven't done so already, you should put it (or parts of it) on Amazon to discourage readers!
Carol
>
> More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Carol responds:
I agree completely though I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?
Regarding Shakespeare, I suspect that he spotted the irony but was more interested in the black comic exaggeration, which suited his own purposes. (His having Richard as Duke of Gloucester fight in the Battle of Wakefield, which in fact occurred when he was eight years old, was my first clue that Shakespeare had played fast and loose with history, in essence trading Richard's age with his brother Edmund's.) We can't, of course, know what Shakespeare thought, but More handed him the makings of a black comic caricature to which he added his own all too memorable flourishes.
To return to More, his elaborately incorrect statement of Edward's age at death and his placing Richard on the privy when the "secret page" reports that Tyrell is outside his door are among the many clues that, yes, we should not take this work seriously. (If the page is so "secret" that More doesn't know his identity, how could he know the equally secret conversation, both other participants being dead?)
By the way, I checked out your lively and interesting blog. Loved your review of Philippa Gregory's book. If you haven't done so already, you should put it (or parts of it) on Amazon to discourage readers!
Carol
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 09:20:02
Carol wrote //snip// I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?//
May I humbly submit my own analysis on pp. 291-2 and 294-5 of "Richard III: The Maligned King"?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Carol responds:
I agree completely though I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?
Regarding Shakespeare, I suspect that he spotted the irony but was more interested in the black comic exaggeration, which suited his own purposes. (His having Richard as Duke of Gloucester fight in the Battle of Wakefield, which in fact occurred when he was eight years old, was my first clue that Shakespeare had played fast and loose with history, in essence trading Richard's age with his brother Edmund's.) We can't, of course, know what Shakespeare thought, but More handed him the makings of a black comic caricature to which he added his own all too memorable flourishes.
To return to More, his elaborately incorrect statement of Edward's age at death and his placing Richard on the privy when the "secret page" reports that Tyrell is outside his door are among the many clues that, yes, we should not take this work seriously. (If the page is so "secret" that More doesn't know his identity, how could he know the equally secret conversation, both other participants being dead?)
By the way, I checked out your lively and interesting blog. Loved your review of Philippa Gregory's book. If you haven't done so already, you should put it (or parts of it) on Amazon to discourage readers!
Carol
May I humbly submit my own analysis on pp. 291-2 and 294-5 of "Richard III: The Maligned King"?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> More isn't to be taken at all seriously. Not because it's propaganda but because it's likely to be satire. Take that sentence you quoted, Ellen. To me, it drips with irony. Shakespeare might have used More as one of his sources, but maybe he missed the point of it as well.
Carol responds:
I agree completely though I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?
Regarding Shakespeare, I suspect that he spotted the irony but was more interested in the black comic exaggeration, which suited his own purposes. (His having Richard as Duke of Gloucester fight in the Battle of Wakefield, which in fact occurred when he was eight years old, was my first clue that Shakespeare had played fast and loose with history, in essence trading Richard's age with his brother Edmund's.) We can't, of course, know what Shakespeare thought, but More handed him the makings of a black comic caricature to which he added his own all too memorable flourishes.
To return to More, his elaborately incorrect statement of Edward's age at death and his placing Richard on the privy when the "secret page" reports that Tyrell is outside his door are among the many clues that, yes, we should not take this work seriously. (If the page is so "secret" that More doesn't know his identity, how could he know the equally secret conversation, both other participants being dead?)
By the way, I checked out your lively and interesting blog. Loved your review of Philippa Gregory's book. If you haven't done so already, you should put it (or parts of it) on Amazon to discourage readers!
Carol
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 17:56:59
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Carol wrote //snip// I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?//
>
> May I humbly submit my own analysis on pp. 291-2 and 294-5 of "Richard III: The Maligned King"?
> Regards, Annette
Carol responds:
Poor Annette! I keep inadvertently stepping on your toes. I had forgotten your analysis--and "The Maligned King" is one of my favorite books. But I meant something more detailed that analyzes individual passages in depth, essentially "The Annotated 'History of King Richard III' by Sir Thomas More." You mention that many scholars hold the view that it's a satirical drama, but can you list others besides Hanham? Bear in mind that I've let my RIII Society membership lapse and am behind on the scholarship. But I'm also interested in how More scholars, as opposed to Richard scholars, see him. (I'm not interested in Tudor historians who take his word as gospel. I'm interested in an in-depth analysis of the prose as either morality play or satire.)
Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation, concocted of other Tudor "histories" (Morton, Vergil, Andre, Rous), rumors, and his own dark comic imagination. Whether he was satirizing these (mostly concocted and very biased) "histories" or satirizing Henry VII--tyranny as he knew it--through Richard, I'm not sure, but certainly he knew that Henry wasn't the saintly savior of England that the Tudor myth depicted him as being, and he must have known that Richard's reputation (and alleged disfigurement) were already being distorted. He never intended his manuscript for publication. Too bad if found its way to Shakespeare via Hall and Holinshed and too bad some historians think that More was incapable of writing fiction. Have they never heard of "Utopia"?
Carol
>
> Carol wrote //snip// I'm not aware of anyone besides Alison Hanham who has discussed the satire idea in any detail. Are you familiar with any more recent sources that explore it?//
>
> May I humbly submit my own analysis on pp. 291-2 and 294-5 of "Richard III: The Maligned King"?
> Regards, Annette
Carol responds:
Poor Annette! I keep inadvertently stepping on your toes. I had forgotten your analysis--and "The Maligned King" is one of my favorite books. But I meant something more detailed that analyzes individual passages in depth, essentially "The Annotated 'History of King Richard III' by Sir Thomas More." You mention that many scholars hold the view that it's a satirical drama, but can you list others besides Hanham? Bear in mind that I've let my RIII Society membership lapse and am behind on the scholarship. But I'm also interested in how More scholars, as opposed to Richard scholars, see him. (I'm not interested in Tudor historians who take his word as gospel. I'm interested in an in-depth analysis of the prose as either morality play or satire.)
Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation, concocted of other Tudor "histories" (Morton, Vergil, Andre, Rous), rumors, and his own dark comic imagination. Whether he was satirizing these (mostly concocted and very biased) "histories" or satirizing Henry VII--tyranny as he knew it--through Richard, I'm not sure, but certainly he knew that Henry wasn't the saintly savior of England that the Tudor myth depicted him as being, and he must have known that Richard's reputation (and alleged disfigurement) were already being distorted. He never intended his manuscript for publication. Too bad if found its way to Shakespeare via Hall and Holinshed and too bad some historians think that More was incapable of writing fiction. Have they never heard of "Utopia"?
Carol
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 18:35:00
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation,
I was an editor for many years, and in my opinion there are two distinctly different writing styles in what we know as More's The History of King Richard III.
The style changes with whiplash abruptness in the middle of a page -- which page depends on what edition you are reading, of course -- at the time the boys are about to be done away with. The second part, after this gear shift of writing styles, is distinctly More. His style is turgid, heavy-handed, and prone to repetition. He tells you what he is going to tell you, he tells you, sometimes more than once, then he tells you what to think about what he just told you. His zippiest work is Utopia, if you want a sample of his style.
The first part of the tale is something else altogether. The writing is vivid, full of action and details, and it grabs the reader and takes him along on a you-are-there adventure, right into a melee bursting forth in the council chamber. It is positively cinematic -- you could film that scene direct from the pages. John Morton had the reputation for being a gifted writer. Though a young man at the time, he was the principal author of the bill of attainder against the Duke of York at the Parliament of Devils. Granted that that would, I think, have been in Latin legalese, he was said to be an admirable wordsmith. You'll notice that Morton plays a big role in the business in the council chamber -- they are his strawberries that are sent for while Richard apparently stalls waiting for some sort of information to arrive and we learn that Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
(Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
Katy
>
> Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation,
I was an editor for many years, and in my opinion there are two distinctly different writing styles in what we know as More's The History of King Richard III.
The style changes with whiplash abruptness in the middle of a page -- which page depends on what edition you are reading, of course -- at the time the boys are about to be done away with. The second part, after this gear shift of writing styles, is distinctly More. His style is turgid, heavy-handed, and prone to repetition. He tells you what he is going to tell you, he tells you, sometimes more than once, then he tells you what to think about what he just told you. His zippiest work is Utopia, if you want a sample of his style.
The first part of the tale is something else altogether. The writing is vivid, full of action and details, and it grabs the reader and takes him along on a you-are-there adventure, right into a melee bursting forth in the council chamber. It is positively cinematic -- you could film that scene direct from the pages. John Morton had the reputation for being a gifted writer. Though a young man at the time, he was the principal author of the bill of attainder against the Duke of York at the Parliament of Devils. Granted that that would, I think, have been in Latin legalese, he was said to be an admirable wordsmith. You'll notice that Morton plays a big role in the business in the council chamber -- they are his strawberries that are sent for while Richard apparently stalls waiting for some sort of information to arrive and we learn that Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
(Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
Katy
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 18:42:56
Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
Katy
If only....if only it had gone an inch or two deeper....:0/
>
Eileen
>
To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
>
> Katy
>
Katy
If only....if only it had gone an inch or two deeper....:0/
>
Eileen
>
To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
>
> Katy
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 19:11:49
Carol earlier:
> > Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation,
>
Katy responded:
> I was an editor for many years, and in my opinion there are two distinctly different writing styles in what we know as More's The History of King Richard III.
>
> The style changes with whiplash abruptness in the middle of a page -- which page depends on what edition you are reading, of course -- at the time the boys are about to be done away with. The second part, after this gear shift of writing styles, is distinctly More. His style is turgid, heavy-handed, and prone to repetition. <snip> John Morton had the reputation for being a gifted writer. <snip> You'll notice that Morton plays a big role in the business in the council chamber -- they are his strawberries that are sent for while Richard apparently stalls waiting for some sort of information to arrive and we learn that Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
>
> To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
Carol again:
I couldn't bring myself to snip much of your lively and interesting post. I'm an editor, too, but I hadn't noted the stylistic difference, only the liveliness and wicked sense of humor as well as a lot of sloppy sentimentality about the dolorous death of those babes only to state that it was all just a tale and they might still be alive! I also noted the break-off point and apparent reluctance to present Henry VII as the savior of England and the numerous invented conversations (a humanist convention) which no living person could have witnessed or reported. (Morton was, of course, in Brecon with Buckingham when the alleged conversation between Richard and Tyrell occurred--and Richard, far from sitting on the privy in one of his castles, was on progress to the North. As for what "men constantly say" about Gloucester and Clarence, Morton was present, wasn't he, so he would have *known* that Richard protested openly.)
As for the council scene, if Morton did originate it, he was an even more inspired fiction writer than More if More invented it, or rather, he was an out and out liar. There was no withered arm (and I doubt that there were strawberries, either. I've always thought that they must have some symbolic or allegorical significance lost to us moderns).
Do you remember where you read that Morton was a gifted writer? (Of course, anything he wrote would probably have been in Latin, as was one version of More's manuscript.)
Carol, wondering what Morton's purpose would have been in writing such a manuscript since he obviously never published it
> > Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation,
>
Katy responded:
> I was an editor for many years, and in my opinion there are two distinctly different writing styles in what we know as More's The History of King Richard III.
>
> The style changes with whiplash abruptness in the middle of a page -- which page depends on what edition you are reading, of course -- at the time the boys are about to be done away with. The second part, after this gear shift of writing styles, is distinctly More. His style is turgid, heavy-handed, and prone to repetition. <snip> John Morton had the reputation for being a gifted writer. <snip> You'll notice that Morton plays a big role in the business in the council chamber -- they are his strawberries that are sent for while Richard apparently stalls waiting for some sort of information to arrive and we learn that Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
>
> To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
Carol again:
I couldn't bring myself to snip much of your lively and interesting post. I'm an editor, too, but I hadn't noted the stylistic difference, only the liveliness and wicked sense of humor as well as a lot of sloppy sentimentality about the dolorous death of those babes only to state that it was all just a tale and they might still be alive! I also noted the break-off point and apparent reluctance to present Henry VII as the savior of England and the numerous invented conversations (a humanist convention) which no living person could have witnessed or reported. (Morton was, of course, in Brecon with Buckingham when the alleged conversation between Richard and Tyrell occurred--and Richard, far from sitting on the privy in one of his castles, was on progress to the North. As for what "men constantly say" about Gloucester and Clarence, Morton was present, wasn't he, so he would have *known* that Richard protested openly.)
As for the council scene, if Morton did originate it, he was an even more inspired fiction writer than More if More invented it, or rather, he was an out and out liar. There was no withered arm (and I doubt that there were strawberries, either. I've always thought that they must have some symbolic or allegorical significance lost to us moderns).
Do you remember where you read that Morton was a gifted writer? (Of course, anything he wrote would probably have been in Latin, as was one version of More's manuscript.)
Carol, wondering what Morton's purpose would have been in writing such a manuscript since he obviously never published it
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 19:15:34
Are you related to Earl Ziemke who taught history at the university of georgia.
he was a great teacher [but it has been 45 years]
tom smith
----- Original Message -----
Carol earlier:
> > Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation,
>
Katy responded:
> I was an editor for many years, and in my opinion there are two distinctly different writing styles in what we know as More's The History of King Richard III.
>
> The style changes with whiplash abruptness in the middle of a page -- which page depends on what edition you are reading, of course -- at the time the boys are about to be done away with. The second part, after this gear shift of writing styles, is distinctly More. His style is turgid, heavy-handed, and prone to repetition. <snip> John Morton had the reputation for being a gifted writer. <snip> You'll notice that Morton plays a big role in the business in the council chamber -- they are his strawberries that are sent for while Richard apparently stalls waiting for some sort of information to arrive and we learn that Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
>
> To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
Carol again:
I couldn't bring myself to snip much of your lively and interesting post. I'm an editor, too, but I hadn't noted the stylistic difference, only the liveliness and wicked sense of humor as well as a lot of sloppy sentimentality about the dolorous death of those babes only to state that it was all just a tale and they might still be alive! I also noted the break-off point and apparent reluctance to present Henry VII as the savior of England and the numerous invented conversations (a humanist convention) which no living person could have witnessed or reported. (Morton was, of course, in Brecon with Buckingham when the alleged conversation between Richard and Tyrell occurred--and Richard, far from sitting on the privy in one of his castles, was on progress to the North. As for what "men constantly say" about Gloucester and Clarence, Morton was present, wasn't he, so he would have *known* that Richard protested openly.)
As for the council scene, if Morton did originate it, he was an even more inspired fiction writer than More if More invented it, or rather, he was an out and out liar. There was no withered arm (and I doubt that there were strawberries, either. I've always thought that they must have some symbolic or allegorical significance lost to us moderns).
Do you remember where you read that Morton was a gifted writer? (Of course, anything he wrote would probably have been in Latin, as was one version of More's manuscript.)
Carol, wondering what Morton's purpose would have been in writing such a manuscript since he obviously never published it
he was a great teacher [but it has been 45 years]
tom smith
----- Original Message -----
Carol earlier:
> > Essentially, whether Morton left a lost manuscript or not, my theory is that More's Richard is essentially his own creation,
>
Katy responded:
> I was an editor for many years, and in my opinion there are two distinctly different writing styles in what we know as More's The History of King Richard III.
>
> The style changes with whiplash abruptness in the middle of a page -- which page depends on what edition you are reading, of course -- at the time the boys are about to be done away with. The second part, after this gear shift of writing styles, is distinctly More. His style is turgid, heavy-handed, and prone to repetition. <snip> John Morton had the reputation for being a gifted writer. <snip> You'll notice that Morton plays a big role in the business in the council chamber -- they are his strawberries that are sent for while Richard apparently stalls waiting for some sort of information to arrive and we learn that Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
>
> To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
Carol again:
I couldn't bring myself to snip much of your lively and interesting post. I'm an editor, too, but I hadn't noted the stylistic difference, only the liveliness and wicked sense of humor as well as a lot of sloppy sentimentality about the dolorous death of those babes only to state that it was all just a tale and they might still be alive! I also noted the break-off point and apparent reluctance to present Henry VII as the savior of England and the numerous invented conversations (a humanist convention) which no living person could have witnessed or reported. (Morton was, of course, in Brecon with Buckingham when the alleged conversation between Richard and Tyrell occurred--and Richard, far from sitting on the privy in one of his castles, was on progress to the North. As for what "men constantly say" about Gloucester and Clarence, Morton was present, wasn't he, so he would have *known* that Richard protested openly.)
As for the council scene, if Morton did originate it, he was an even more inspired fiction writer than More if More invented it, or rather, he was an out and out liar. There was no withered arm (and I doubt that there were strawberries, either. I've always thought that they must have some symbolic or allegorical significance lost to us moderns).
Do you remember where you read that Morton was a gifted writer? (Of course, anything he wrote would probably have been in Latin, as was one version of More's manuscript.)
Carol, wondering what Morton's purpose would have been in writing such a manuscript since he obviously never published it
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 19:53:17
snip
If only....if only it had gone an inch or two deeper....:0/
>
Eileen
>
And so say all of us!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2012, 18:42
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
Katy
If only....if only it had gone an inch or two deeper....:0/
>
Eileen
>
To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
>
> Katy
>
If only....if only it had gone an inch or two deeper....:0/
>
Eileen
>
And so say all of us!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2012, 18:42
Subject: Re: mtDNA
Morton received a cut on his head while diving under a table when swords are drawn.
Katy
If only....if only it had gone an inch or two deeper....:0/
>
Eileen
>
To stick my head out, from the circumstantial evidence I see in the story, I'd say it was started by Morton and expanded by More, who backs up and retells us things that have already been covered in the narrative, then proceeds to bludgeon us with his own style.
>
> (Surely better minds than mine have examined the styles, phraseology,. and word-usage in this piece. I'd love to read those analyses if anyone could supply the info.)
>
> Katy
>
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-20 20:26:40
THOMAS M SMITH wrote:
>
> Are you related to Earl Ziemke who taught history at the university of georgia.
>
> he was a great teacher [but it has been 45 years]
> tom smith
Carol responds:
I'm not sure whether you're referring to me or to Katy. If you mean me, no, I've never heard of Professor Ziemke, but I did teach college English for eighteen years. Guess I still sound like a teacher.
Carol
>
> Are you related to Earl Ziemke who taught history at the university of georgia.
>
> he was a great teacher [but it has been 45 years]
> tom smith
Carol responds:
I'm not sure whether you're referring to me or to Katy. If you mean me, no, I've never heard of Professor Ziemke, but I did teach college English for eighteen years. Guess I still sound like a teacher.
Carol
Re: mtDNA
2012-09-21 00:44:27
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> THOMAS M SMITH wrote:
> >
> > Are you related to Earl Ziemke who taught history at the university of georgia.
> >
> > he was a great teacher [but it has been 45 years]
> > tom smith
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not sure whether you're referring to me or to Katy. If you mean me, no, I've never heard of Professor Ziemke, but I did teach college English for eighteen years. Guess I still sound like a teacher.
>
> Carol
I'm not related to him, either.
Katy
>
> THOMAS M SMITH wrote:
> >
> > Are you related to Earl Ziemke who taught history at the university of georgia.
> >
> > he was a great teacher [but it has been 45 years]
> > tom smith
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not sure whether you're referring to me or to Katy. If you mean me, no, I've never heard of Professor Ziemke, but I did teach college English for eighteen years. Guess I still sound like a teacher.
>
> Carol
I'm not related to him, either.
Katy
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.