Re: Edward IV's sons

//snip// 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.) //snip//

If we are to have an ongoing discussion on this subject, we'd better do so under a new subject heading. I'm afraid I am not ready to be so categorical in my opinions as Karen, who has evidently satisfied herself on several points, and is of course welcome to stick to her conclusions. This doesn't mean there is no merit in considering alternative possibilities.

If serious reflection is given to the subject of relocating the sons of Edward IV from the Tower, I think it will be seen that 'smuggling' them out was not necessary, nor have I suggested it. If relocation was what happened, they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure.

If one tries to look for evidence of what happened to them, nothing reliable will be found, whether it's for their murder, their removal, or their return as pretenders - so I'm afraid lack of evidence does not disprove anything.

The argument against Charles II's identification of the remains found ten feet under a stone staircase in 1674 is not wishful thinking, it's sober analysis of relative possibilities. It was made clear at the time that their identification was based on Thomas More's story. I'm afraid I am not credulous enough to believe More, therefore I prefer to look for some alternative explanation for how they got there. Seeing that we know Tanner and Wright had no reliable means of determining their gender, age at death or antiquity, the remains may indeed be pre-Norman. Owing to the nature of the terrain, the specific place where they were found was never part of the area used for Roman or earlier fortifications, so they might have been a straightforward burial on top of which the Norman edifice was built. The depth at which they were unearthed - foundation level - is conducive to this possibility.

I spent 30 pages on this analysis in "Maligned King", and Peter Hammond (historian) with Bill White (anatomist, Museum of London) spent 44 pages in the 1980s on their paper on the same subject published in "Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law", not to mention analyses by various other experts consulted; consequently there is plenty of in-depth material accessible to anyone wanting to read up on the subject, and I suspect many forum members have done a lot of reading and research before expressing views that question the identification of the 1674 remains according to the Thomas More scenario. I have yet to read that amount of closely reasoned argument to support it. I think, therefore, that more credit should be given to these views than the suggestion that people dismiss the remains in Westminster Abbey because they don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA



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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I said that the Tower was above London Bridge. If I had looked at a map of Medieval London, I'd have seen that it was below it.

Sorry about that.

But the rest of my comment stands. One could depart the Water Gate in a rowboat or a barge, to slip away quietly in the darkness.

Katy

Annette

I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
it. I don't see that my being 'categorical' in my opinion is different from
anyone else here being categorical in theirs. All along the line, from start
to finish, 'alternative possibilities' must be considered. This includes the
fates of the princes. I can't see them leaving the Tower alive. They simply
vanished. That leaves their deaths unexplained and, if they were murdered,
doesn't name their murderer. The skeletons may well not be the princes (I
don't recall saying that I believed they were) and it may not even require a
dna test to establish that.

"they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
would have been noticed and talked about. And while lack of evidence doesn't
disprove anything, you're absolutely right there, it doesn't make
explanations conjured out of thin air correct.

More isn't to be swallowed whole, as he wasn't writing history or propaganda
but more likely satire, circulated privately among friends. I think he'd be
highly amused that anyone has taken any of it seriously. The anger and scorn
reserved for More might be misplaced. Rather than churning out the usual
'Tudor propaganda' line (which puts people off, it really does) regarding
More, maybe we'd be better serving history and Richard if we talked more
about its satirical purpose. Even today, a lot of people miss satire and
take it for straight reporting.

The fate of the princes is a matter that can't be resolved without more
information, which we just don't have. We could have a 'he did!' 'didn't!'
argument with the rest of the world till the cows some home, and it still
wouldn't be resolved. Both sides can claim they've read all the available
sources and reached an unbiased hypothesis. That leaves a lot of us in the
middle (including me) who say only 'I don't know what happened to the
princes and I'll probably never know'.

Karen


From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:27:48 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons






//snip// 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.) //snip//

If we are to have an ongoing discussion on this subject, we'd better do so
under a new subject heading. I'm afraid I am not ready to be so categorical
in my opinions as Karen, who has evidently satisfied herself on several
points, and is of course welcome to stick to her conclusions. This doesn't
mean there is no merit in considering alternative possibilities.

If serious reflection is given to the subject of relocating the sons of
Edward IV from the Tower, I think it will be seen that 'smuggling' them out
was not necessary, nor have I suggested it. If relocation was what happened,
they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure.

If one tries to look for evidence of what happened to them, nothing reliable
will be found, whether it's for their murder, their removal, or their return
as pretenders - so I'm afraid lack of evidence does not disprove anything.

The argument against Charles II's identification of the remains found ten
feet under a stone staircase in 1674 is not wishful thinking, it's sober
analysis of relative possibilities. It was made clear at the time that their
identification was based on Thomas More's story. I'm afraid I am not
credulous enough to believe More, therefore I prefer to look for some
alternative explanation for how they got there. Seeing that we know Tanner
and Wright had no reliable means of determining their gender, age at death
or antiquity, the remains may indeed be pre-Norman. Owing to the nature of
the terrain, the specific place where they were found was never part of the
area used for Roman or earlier fortifications, so they might have been a
straightforward burial on top of which the Norman edifice was built. The
depth at which they were unearthed - foundation level - is conducive to this
possibility.

I spent 30 pages on this analysis in "Maligned King", and Peter Hammond
(historian) with Bill White (anatomist, Museum of London) spent 44 pages in
the 1980s on their paper on the same subject published in "Richard III:
Loyalty, Lordship and Law", not to mention analyses by various other experts
consulted; consequently there is plenty of in-depth material accessible to
anyone wanting to read up on the subject, and I suspect many forum members
have done a lot of reading and research before expressing views that
question the identification of the 1674 remains according to the Thomas More
scenario. I have yet to read that amount of closely reasoned argument to
support it. I think, therefore, that more credit should be given to these
views than the suggestion that people dismiss the remains in Westminster
Abbey because they don't like to think of Richard III ordering their deaths.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA

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@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me. For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.


I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Katy

Yes, that's what I do as well, revisit my thinking. Very little is 'settled'
in my mind. I've been trying hard to make that very clear here. If anyone
here has been reading my blog, there's ample evidence of that. If I'd relied
only on secondary sources, my gleanings would have been very thin indeed!
I'm very far from being the person who won't shift her thinking. I hugely
appreciate the work done by others, whether I agree wholeheartedly with
their conclusions or not.

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:31:51 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly
visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have
caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and
departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able
to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow
of lanterns.

Katy

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I do as well, revisit my thinking. Very little is 'settled'
> in my mind. I've been trying hard to make that very clear here. If anyone
> here has been reading my blog, there's ample evidence of that.


Could you give us a link to your blog or tell us where to find it? I'd like to read it.


Katy

Sure, Katy. It's here:

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/

Still working my way through the 1450s at the moment. Waiting for some
documents from the Magdalen College archives: very exciting!

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:24:48 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I do as well, revisit my thinking. Very little is 'settled'
> in my mind. I've been trying hard to make that very clear here. If anyone
> here has been reading my blog, there's ample evidence of that.

Could you give us a link to your blog or tell us where to find it? I'd
like to read it.

Katy

Karen,
 
I like your review of Ms Gregory's book.    I note that her FFB is still all "me me me" and no a peep about what is happening in Leicester ....

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 7:34
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
Sure, Katy. It's here:

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/

Still working my way through the 1450s at the moment. Waiting for some
documents from the Magdalen College archives: very exciting!

Karen

From: oregon_katy <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:24:48 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I do as well, revisit my thinking. Very little is 'settled'
> in my mind. I've been trying hard to make that very clear here. If anyone
> here has been reading my blog, there's ample evidence of that.

Could you give us a link to your blog or tell us where to find it? I'd
like to read it.

Katy






K

Personally I think they could have been moved discreetly and then sent abroad OR killed somewhere else quietly.   To my mind, although obviously I prefer the idea that they went abroad, the latter could be possible.  I certainly don't believe the remains in the Urn at Westminster belong to the boys since from what I remember the staircase  they were found beneath was built long before Richard's reign anyway.  I am currently re-reading Annette' book but not quite got to the relevant chapter.
 
Liz
 
 
 
 
 
 

> Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly
visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have
caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and
departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able
to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow
of lanterns.

Katy

Katy, if you'd like to see artists' impressions of usage of the site of the ToL over the centuries, there's a super little Osprey book in the Landmarks in History series entitled "The Tower of London, A 2000-Year History". Because of the terrain on the flood plain of the Thames, which I describe in "Maligned King", basically no one before the Normans built sizeable fortified structures on the south-west side of that area because it was so soft and gravelly, instead they preferred the eastern end of the site where there was an area of good solid rock upon which to build stone fortifications. The area now known as the Inmost Ward was reclaimed marsh. Of course there could have been any number of timber buildings and private houses there, but not what I would call sizeable or important constructions. The forebuilding and associated stairs, where the remains of the children were found, was at the extreme south-west corner of the White Tower.


----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons





--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me. For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Katy

It's difficult to be certain, but the stone staircase giving access to the ascent to the chapel seems to have been put in place in or before 1360.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons



Personally I think they could have been moved discreetly and then sent abroad OR killed somewhere else quietly. To my mind, although obviously I prefer the idea that they went abroad, the latter could be possible. I certainly don't believe the remains in the Urn at Westminster belong to the boys since from what I remember the staircase they were found beneath was built long before Richard's reign anyway. I am currently re-reading Annette' book but not quite got to the relevant chapter.

Liz







> Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly
visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have
caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and
departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able
to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow
of lanterns.

Katy

Liz

I was warned that it'd be dire.

Karen

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:47:29 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons






Karen,

I like your review of Ms Gregory's book. I note that her FFB is still all
"me me me" and no a peep about what is happening in Leicester ....

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 7:34
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


Sure, Katy. It's here:

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/

Still working my way through the 1450s at the moment. Waiting for some
documents from the Magdalen College archives: very exciting!

Karen

From: oregon_katy <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:24:48 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I do as well, revisit my thinking. Very little is 'settled'
> in my mind. I've been trying hard to make that very clear here. If anyone
> here has been reading my blog, there's ample evidence of that.

Could you give us a link to your blog or tell us where to find it? I'd
like to read it.

Katy



K

Apparently by "liking" her FB page we can get to read the first five chapters free!  I am quite tempted but could not bear the embarrassment of people thinking I liked her books


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 11:15
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
Liz

I was warned that it'd be dire.

Karen

From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:47:29 +0100 (BST)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

Karen,

I like your review of Ms Gregory's book. I note that her FFB is still all
"me me me" and no a peep about what is happening in Leicester ....

From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 7:34
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

Sure, Katy. It's here:

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/

Still working my way through the 1450s at the moment. Waiting for some
documents from the Magdalen College archives: very exciting!

Karen

From: oregon_katy <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:24:48 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I do as well, revisit my thinking. Very little is 'settled'
> in my mind. I've been trying hard to make that very clear here. If anyone
> here has been reading my blog, there's ample evidence of that.

Could you give us a link to your blog or tell us where to find it? I'd
like to read it.

Katy



K

LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the stairs- no one would notice that- right?????


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me. For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Katy

Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
(casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.

Karen

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons






LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
stairs- no one would notice that- right?????

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons



--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
lanterns.

Katy

One of the problems with discussing Richard  and a problem exacerbated
by Shakespeare  is that everything keeps coming back to a debate about what
happened to the sons of Edward IV. The trouble is, there's very
little evidence of anything and it's virtually impossible to put
together a coherent and plausible narrative, no matter what standpoint you adopt. Worst of all, the whole thing often degenerates into a game of celebrity cluedo in which
people seem compelled to nominate suspects in opposition to each other:
Richard, Buckingham, Henry Tudor, Margaret Beaufort etc. That all seems
too neat and tidy if you believe more in the cock-up than conspiracy
theory of history.

All the speculation is based on how we *think* people would have behaved.  That can be interesting, but it's very dangerous given the complexity and unpredictability of human nature.

If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what happened (e.g.  William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even begin to guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.

Jonathan






________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 15:25
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
(casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.

Karen

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
stairs- no one would notice that- right?????

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
lanterns.

Katy

On the contrary...I think it is important that we keep on asking questions, albeit the same old ones, debating, suggesting and going over and over, ...This keeps the story alive in peoples minds and ensures Richard is not forgotten...After all if we stopped asking and putting forward our theories until new evidence turns up there surely there would be no Society and no Forum...Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what happened (e.g.  William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even begin to guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 15:25
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
>
>  
> Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
> two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
> especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
> people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
> slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
> the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
> of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
> (casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
> something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
> to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
> is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
> murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
> away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
> causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
> evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
> great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
> are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
> pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
> LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
> would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
> stairs- no one would notice that- right?????
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
>
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> > Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> > it.
>
> It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
> mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
> For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
> foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
> Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
> pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
> research.
>
> [snip]
>
> Karen is quoting Annette here:
>
> > "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> > belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> > destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
> >
> >There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> > would have been noticed and talked about.
>
> I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
> remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
> especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
> notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
> would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
> even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
> lanterns.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree, Jonathan. I think there are far more interesting and rewarding
things to discuss. But, as you say, it keeps coming back to the princes.

Karen

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:15:24 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons






One of the problems with discussing Richard ­ and a problem exacerbated
by Shakespeare ­ is that everything keeps coming back to a debate about what
happened to the sons of Edward IV. The trouble is, there's very
little evidence of anything and it's virtually impossible to put
together a coherent and plausible narrative, no matter what standpoint you
adopt. Worst of all, the whole thing often degenerates into a game of
celebrity cluedo in which
people seem compelled to nominate suspects in opposition to each other:
Richard, Buckingham, Henry Tudor, Margaret Beaufort etc. That all seems
too neat and tidy if you believe more in the cock-up than conspiracy
theory of history.

All the speculation is based on how we *think* people would have behaved.
That can be interesting, but it's very dangerous given the complexity and
unpredictability of human nature.

If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what happened
(e.g. William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even begin to
guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 15:25
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons



Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
(casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.

Karen

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@... <mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
stairs- no one would notice that- right?????

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> it.

It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
research.

[snip]

Karen is quoting Annette here:

> "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
>
>There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> would have been noticed and talked about.

I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
lanterns.

Katy

I'm not saying don't ask questions - more the exact opposite: when so much comes down to speculation, don't become too wedded to one theory over and above another.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:24
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
On the contrary...I think it is important that we keep on asking questions, albeit the same old ones, debating, suggesting and going over and over, ...This keeps the story alive in peoples minds and ensures Richard is not forgotten...After all if we stopped asking and putting forward our theories until new evidence turns up there surely there would be no Society and no Forum...Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what happened (e.g.  William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even begin to guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 15:25
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
>
>  
> Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
> two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
> especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
> people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
> slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
> the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
> of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
> (casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
> something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
> to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
> is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
> murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
> away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
> causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
> evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
> great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
> are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
> pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
> LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
> would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
> stairs- no one would notice that- right?????
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
>
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> > Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> > it.
>
> It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
> mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
> For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
> foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
> Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
> pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
> research.
>
> [snip]
>
> Karen is quoting Annette here:
>
> > "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> > belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> > destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
> >
> >There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> > would have been noticed and talked about.
>
> I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
> remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
> especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
> notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
> would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
> even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
> lanterns.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think it might become hard not to have, over many years pondering, a favourite theory or two. Of course it is important not to become totally entrenched in those theories...But I can say with certainty Jonathan, with regards to those bones in the blasted Urn...this lady is not for turning :0)


--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying don't ask questions - more the exact opposite: when so much comes down to speculation, don't become too wedded to one theory over and above another.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
>
>  
> On the contrary...I think it is important that we keep on asking questions, albeit the same old ones, debating, suggesting and going over and over, ...This keeps the story alive in peoples minds and ensures Richard is not forgotten...After all if we stopped asking and putting forward our theories until new evidence turns up there surely there would be no Society and no Forum...Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what happened (e.g.  William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even begin to guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 15:25
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> >
> >  
> > Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
> > two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
> > especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
> > people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
> > slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
> > the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
> > of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
> > (casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
> > something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
> > to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
> > is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
> > murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
> > away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
> > causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
> > evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
> > great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
> > are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
> > pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> > LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
> > would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
> > stairs- no one would notice that- right?????
> >
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@ <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> > > Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> > > it.
> >
> > It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
> > mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
> > For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
> > foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
> > Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
> > pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
> > research.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Karen is quoting Annette here:
> >
> > > "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> > > belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> > > destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
> > >
> > >There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> > > would have been noticed and talked about.
> >
> > I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
> > remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
> > especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
> > notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
> > would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
> > even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
> > lanterns.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm with you on that.  I think the provenance of the bones is a lot more dubious than the theory that the princes died in the Tower - and that I'm not convinced of either way.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: b.eileen25 <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:46
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
I think it might become hard not to have, over many years pondering, a favourite theory or two. Of course it is important not to become totally entrenched in those theories...But I can say with certainty Jonathan, with regards to those bones in the blasted Urn...this lady is not for turning :0)

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying don't ask questions - more the exact opposite: when so much comes down to speculation, don't become too wedded to one theory over and above another.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
>
>  
> On the contrary...I think it is important that we keep on asking questions, albeit the same old ones, debating, suggesting and going over and over, ...This keeps the story alive in peoples minds and ensures Richard is not forgotten...After all if we stopped asking and putting forward our theories until new evidence turns up there surely there would be no Society and no Forum...Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what happened (e.g.à William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even begin to guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 15:25
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> >
> > à
> > Yes, someone digging a hole would be noticed. But so would the departure of
> > two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
> > especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
> > people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
> > slip.) Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
> > the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
> > of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
> > (casts doubt, doesn't rule out). This is one of my frustrations. If
> > something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
> > to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
> > is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
> > murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
> > away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
> > causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
> > evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
> > great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
> > are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
> > pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> > LOL, yes a barge coming to a gate that had barges coming to it all the time
> > would have been a big deal, but someone digging a ten foot hole under the
> > stairs- no one would notice that- right?????
> >
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@ <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I wasn't suggesting that anyone else should accept that Perkin wasn't the
> > > Duke, just that I don't and that I wasn't going to revisit my thinking on
> > > it.
> >
> > It must be nice to have such firm beliefs and have things settled in your
> > mind. I revise my thinking all the time as further information reaches me.
> > For instance, I thought the two skeletons might have been pre-Roman
> > foundation sacrifices to protect the footings of an important structure, but
> > Annette said in a recent post in this forum that there had been no
> > pre-Norman construction on that site. And I certainly accept Annette's
> > research.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Karen is quoting Annette here:
> >
> > > "they merely had to be taken quietly and calmly, with their escort and
> > > belongings, to whatever form of transport awaited them. It was their
> > > destination that needed to be kept secret, not their departure."
> > >
> > >There's simply no mention of such a highly visible departure anywhere. It
> > > would have been noticed and talked about.
> >
> > I disagree. I misplaced London Bridge in a recent post, but my point
> > remains. A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible,
> > especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused
> > notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing
> > would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see,
> > even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of
> > lanterns.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, All –



I thought the question of whether Richard was likely to have “offed” the
boys was answered by the fact of their having been declared illegitimate
prior to Richard’s assumption of the throne. Thus they did not stand
between Richard and the crown. It was Henry who had the motivation to get
rid of the boys (permanently) because he had them re-legitimated so that he
could marry their sister Elizabeth of York, which helped to consolidate
Henry’s claim to the crown.



Best,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~







From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons





On the contrary...I think it is important that we keep on asking questions,
albeit the same old ones, debating, suggesting and going over and over,
...This keeps the story alive in peoples minds and ensures Richard is not
forgotten...After all if we stopped asking and putting forward our theories
until new evidence turns up there surely there would be no Society and no
Forum...Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
<jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> If even the principal players at the time were uncertain about what
happened (e.g. William Stanley's comment about Warbeck), we can't even
begin to guess 500 years down the line unless new evidence turns up.
>
> Jonathan
>
>

Karen Clark wrote:
//snip//But so would the departure of
two princes, their belongings and their attendants from the Tower,
especially by barge on a busy river. (And, in fact, there would be far more
people involved in the boat scenario, far more people to let something
slip.)
Except that they WEREN'T "two princes", they were the illegitimate sons of Edward IV and as illegitimate offspring there's no reason to assume that Edward and Richard would ONLY be traveling with a large entourage. Whether the boys were moved to just to get them out of the public eye or if they were being moved for their own safety, why advertise any more than need be? Any party departing the ToL may well have consisted of only the two boys and one or two adult males, each carrying a smallish bundle. In other words, two adult males leaving the Tower with their pages/squires. What's to notice? Happens all the time.
Once the party was in the boat/barge they'd still be safe, safer still once on board a larger vessel. Only if it was known in advance when AND how the boys were to be moved would there be any chance of following them or inserting someone into the crew of the boat/barge. Either that or else one has to imagine that not only was a spy assign to watch the Water Gate ALWAYS on duty, but that there was, already in place and only waiting for a departure that may or may ot occur, a boat/barge manned and tasked with following (capturing?) the boat/barge carrying Edward and Richard. Possible? Certainly, as it doesn't go against any known laws of physics, but other than that...
As has been stated, people entered and left by the Water Gate all the time and if no great fuss was made about a departure there's little likelihood that particular departure would be remembered. Any attempt to try and trace the movements of that particular boat/barge three years later would be so difficult as to be impossible. How many of the rowers for the boat/barge were still alive? How many of those vould even be identified? How many would be able to recall what was to them just another trip down the Thames? The same would apply to crewmembers of any larger vessel.


Just as there's no mention of a hole being dug, which casts doubt on
the boys being buried in the Tower (casts doubt, doesn't rule out); the lack
of mention of this mystery barge casts doubt that the boys left the Tower
(casts doubt, doesn't rule out).
But there WAS a mention of a hole being dug by Sir Thomas More and that "mention" is the ONLY reason the Bones in the Urn were ever considered to be the remains of Edward and Richard! That More, in the very same work, then goes on to say that Richard moved the bodies later, beside invalidating the contents of the Urn, tells me that there WAS a rumor the boys were buried somewhere in the Tower, that Henry VII (or someone, his mother?) instituted a search and, most importantly, nothing was found. Otherwise, why did More mention Richard having moved the bodies? Nor could the boys have been buried where the Bones in the Urn WERE found without someone noticing, as it was physically impossible for one person, or even two, to move the stones that made up the bottom of the stairs, dig a hole over six feet deep inter two bodies and replace the bottom of the stairs in the time allotted AND withoutanyone noticing their actions. The more people involved (sorry about that!), the greater the risk of one of those people talking, to family, friends, fellow workers at the Tower.
So yes, it IS possible Edward and Richard were/still are buried somewhere in the ToL but, again, the odds are so very, very small...

This is one of my frustrations. If
something works in one scenario ('someone would have noticed') then it has
to be allowed as a factor in other scenarios. I guess what I'm trying to say
is that 'this could have happened' (whatever that is, the princes being
murdered, the princes being sent secretly to Burgundy, the princes running
away and joining a troupe of travelling actors, the princes dying of natural
causes) doesn't mean that it did happen. Given the complete lack of
evidence, any of these scenarios is as good as the next. Speculation's
great, but only if it's based on something. Until we know just what they
are, the bones discovered in the Tower can't be dismissed, nor assumed to be
pig bones, Roman children or, for that matter, the missing princes.

Karen

The only problem I can see with the reasoning in that second sentence is that it wouldn't apply to two different types of events; ie, usual occurences such as arrivals and departures from the Water Gate without fanfare and unusual occurences, such as burying two bodies in the dead of night in an area that certainly couldn't be described as "out of the way".
I'm in complete agreement with you concerning the lack of evidence as to exactly what DID occur. However, that being said (I never thought I'd ever use that phrase!), I personally think there IS enough evidence concerning the Bones in the Urn to make the judgement (always subject to review in light of new evidence, of course) that those bones are NOT those of either Edward or Richard and to concentrate on other, hopefully more profitable, lines of inquiry.
It's a pity Margaret Rutherford is no longer with us as she may have picked up some Burgundian from that role in "Passport to Pimlico"! Where any future major discoveries will probably be made...

I do want to say that I find your posts very interesting and informative, as my ability to grapple with original sources is, to say the least, extremely limited.

Doug







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Katy wrote:
<snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Carol responds:

And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."

In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.

Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams

There have been some excellent posts this afternoon.

There are FIVE murder suspects: Richard, Tydder, Buckingham, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Nobody.
The fictionalised tradition of More and Shakespeare, boosted by Tanner and Wright's prejudicial conclusions, favoured Richard but, as the years pass, he is becoming less and less probable, not least because the boys' illegitimacy removed his motive.
The Tydder's re-legitimisation of his wife's brothers gives him that motive but his actions in the days following Bosworth, in his years against "Perkin" and the confession he forced upon Tyrrell make him highly marginal.
Buckingham, acting for himself, would surely have found it unnecessary because of the illegitimacy. Buckingham, doing what he thought Richard wanted is a possibility in view of Richard's refusal to meet him - I am reminded of Claudius executing Cassius Chaera for killing Caligula (Claudius' nephew and predecessor as it happens). I think I know Staffords and they act for themselves.
Lady Margaret Beaufort is a possibility as she was in England during 1483, unlike her son, and could easily have known the solution without telling him. She would, however, have needed assistance to gain access to the Tower and to carry out the killings.
We are not aboard the Orient Express but a Buckingham-Beaufort cooperative is not out of the question.

In the past forty or so years, my view has progressed from Richard to the Tydder but now I accuse Nobody, with the strong possibility that Natural Causes was his accomplice.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons



Katy wrote:
<snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Carol responds:

And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."

In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.

Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams

Maybe Margaret Beaufort did not need access to the Tower to carry out the murder... if there was a murder. All she would have needed was someone in her pay inside who had access to the boys.

This could be a good point to ask can anyone refresh my memory.....I have read...I cannot remember which book..it could be one of at least 3 and I cannot find it now...that there was someone in the household of Edward of Middleham who had connections to someone who had connections to Margaret...husband/wife?.Because I believe its possible that Edward was poisoned....Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> There have been some excellent posts this afternoon.
>
> There are FIVE murder suspects: Richard, Tydder, Buckingham, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Nobody.
> The fictionalised tradition of More and Shakespeare, boosted by Tanner and Wright's prejudicial conclusions, favoured Richard but, as the years pass, he is becoming less and less probable, not least because the boys' illegitimacy removed his motive.
> The Tydder's re-legitimisation of his wife's brothers gives him that motive but his actions in the days following Bosworth, in his years against "Perkin" and the confession he forced upon Tyrrell make him highly marginal.
> Buckingham, acting for himself, would surely have found it unnecessary because of the illegitimacy. Buckingham, doing what he thought Richard wanted is a possibility in view of Richard's refusal to meet him - I am reminded of Claudius executing Cassius Chaera for killing Caligula (Claudius' nephew and predecessor as it happens). I think I know Staffords and they act for themselves.
> Lady Margaret Beaufort is a possibility as she was in England during 1483, unlike her son, and could easily have known the solution without telling him. She would, however, have needed assistance to gain access to the Tower and to carry out the killings.
> We are not aboard the Orient Express but a Buckingham-Beaufort cooperative is not out of the question.
>
> In the past forty or so years, my view has progressed from Richard to the Tydder but now I accuse Nobody, with the strong possibility that Natural Causes was his accomplice.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
>
>
>
> Katy wrote:
> <snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."
>
> In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html
>
> All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.
>
> Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Stephen,

Like you, I lean toward Nobody, when it comes to murder.

But my "gut" believes Buckingham facilitated the boys' disappearance. And ostensibly for "worthy" reasons. What if, at that penultimate moment, Richard still trusted him sufficiently to entrust him with their removal? Their regular companions and servants had already been exchanged for others. A plot to release them, which had just been thwarted, led urgency to the scheme. 

Here, let me spin for you a tale I'll call "Princes on a platter" 

Suddenly, Buckingham had his opportunity, and to a self-serving opportunist, it felt heady as if Fate and Fortune had chosen him. He was Constable of England. Richard's closest people would know the king's quiet intentions regarding his nephews. That Buckingham be instrumental? He need not have been present. In fact, better he be heading back to Brecknock. Wonderful for the rumour mill. Who's to say, he didn't contribute to this. 

His word alone sufficed to have those boys delivered into the hands of whichever handful of people were required to fetch them by boat. No retinue. No hoards of attendants. It might have been night. Other boys might have been slipped in, in exchange. And a letter from Buck  might have reassured Edward: Go with these people. I, your other uncle, Harry have reconsidered. I want to support YOU. But first, you must leave; let us protect you against that vile uncle, who stole your titles. 

Under direction, one or both may have written the king - part of this dangerous ploy. Maybe such secretive correspondence was shown in time to Elizabeth Woodville and constituted the best reason for releasing her daughter's to the king?

Buckingham may have thought he could use Henry and his mother as means to his own end. If Richard were defeated, Harry Stafford's claim was far superior to the Tydder's. The boys' illegitimacy remained a lasting impediment to Edward's succession.

And so in the course of weeks - even mere days - the boys slipped from visibility. The people charged with completing the transaction by receiving them and getting them safely abroad never saw their charges. And rebellion turned the world temporarily upside down and inside out, and when it was over, those two children had effectively disappeared.  Richard had no bodies to display, and that "most untrue creature" had left the king with nothing. The elder boy perhaps succumbed to natural causes, leaving one child who may or may not have lived. If he did live, reappearing wasn't an option in the after-math of Bosworth, nor was it viable during those first few years.

In this tale, Richard isn't guilty, though he bears responsibility for his choices. But it is, as I've said, just one possible story to consider.

Just a Story.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
There have been some excellent posts this afternoon.

There are FIVE murder suspects: Richard, Tydder, Buckingham, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Nobody.
The fictionalised tradition of More and Shakespeare, boosted by Tanner and Wright's prejudicial conclusions, favoured Richard but, as the years pass, he is becoming less and less probable, not least because the boys' illegitimacy removed his motive.
The Tydder's re-legitimisation of his wife's brothers gives him that motive but his actions in the days following Bosworth, in his years against "Perkin" and the confession he forced upon Tyrrell make him highly marginal.
Buckingham, acting for himself, would surely have found it unnecessary because of the illegitimacy. Buckingham, doing what he thought Richard wanted is a possibility in view of Richard's refusal to meet him - I am reminded of Claudius executing Cassius Chaera for killing Caligula (Claudius' nephew and predecessor as it happens). I think I know Staffords and they act for themselves.
Lady Margaret Beaufort is a possibility as she was in England during 1483, unlike her son, and could easily have known the solution without telling him. She would, however, have needed assistance to gain access to the Tower and to carry out the killings.
We are not aboard the Orient Express but a Buckingham-Beaufort cooperative is not out of the question.

In the past forty or so years, my view has progressed from Richard to the Tydder but now I accuse Nobody, with the strong possibility that Natural Causes was his accomplice.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

Katy wrote:
<snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Carol responds:

And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."

In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.

Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams

A bit of the Henry II/Beckett scenario to it. 




________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:31:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
Hi, Stephen,

Like you, I lean toward Nobody, when it comes to murder.

But my "gut" believes Buckingham facilitated the boys' disappearance. And ostensibly for "worthy" reasons. What if, at that penultimate moment, Richard still trusted him sufficiently to entrust him with their removal? Their regular companions and servants had already been exchanged for others. A plot to release them, which had just been thwarted, led urgency to the scheme. 

Here, let me spin for you a tale I'll call "Princes on a platter" 

Suddenly, Buckingham had his opportunity, and to a self-serving opportunist, it felt heady as if Fate and Fortune had chosen him. He was Constable of England. Richard's closest people would know the king's quiet intentions regarding his nephews. That Buckingham be instrumental? He need not have been present. In fact, better he be heading back to Brecknock. Wonderful for the rumour mill. Who's to say, he didn't contribute to this. 

His word alone sufficed to have those boys delivered into the hands of whichever handful of people were required to fetch them by boat. No retinue. No hoards of attendants. It might have been night. Other boys might have been slipped in, in exchange. And a letter from Buck  might have reassured Edward: Go with these people. I, your other uncle, Harry have reconsidered. I want to support YOU. But first, you must leave; let us protect you against that vile uncle, who stole your titles. 

Under direction, one or both may have written the king - part of this dangerous ploy. Maybe such secretive correspondence was shown in time to Elizabeth Woodville and constituted the best reason for releasing her daughter's to the king?

Buckingham may have thought he could use Henry and his mother as means to his own end. If Richard were defeated, Harry Stafford's claim was far superior to the Tydder's. The boys' illegitimacy remained a lasting impediment to Edward's succession.

And so in the course of weeks - even mere days - the boys slipped from visibility. The people charged with completing the transaction by receiving them and getting them safely abroad never saw their charges. And rebellion turned the world temporarily upside down and inside out, and when it was over, those two children had effectively disappeared.  Richard had no bodies to display, and that "most untrue creature" had left the king with nothing. The elder boy perhaps succumbed to natural causes, leaving one child who may or may not have lived. If he did live, reappearing wasn't an option in the after-math of Bosworth, nor was it viable during those first few years.

In this tale, Richard isn't guilty, though he bears responsibility for his choices. But it is, as I've said, just one possible story to consider.

Just a Story.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons


 
There have been some excellent posts this afternoon.

There are FIVE murder suspects: Richard, Tydder, Buckingham, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Nobody.
The fictionalised tradition of More and Shakespeare, boosted by Tanner and Wright's prejudicial conclusions, favoured Richard but, as the years pass, he is becoming less and less probable, not least because the boys' illegitimacy removed his motive.
The Tydder's re-legitimisation of his wife's brothers gives him that motive but his actions in the days following Bosworth, in his years against "Perkin" and the confession he forced upon Tyrrell make him highly marginal.
Buckingham, acting for himself, would surely have found it unnecessary because of the illegitimacy. Buckingham, doing what he thought Richard wanted is a possibility in view of Richard's refusal to meet him - I am reminded of Claudius executing Cassius Chaera for killing Caligula (Claudius' nephew and predecessor as it happens). I think I know Staffords and they act for themselves.
Lady Margaret Beaufort is a possibility as she was in England during 1483, unlike her son, and could easily have known the solution without telling him. She would, however, have needed assistance to gain access to the Tower and to carry out the killings.
We are not aboard the Orient Express but a Buckingham-Beaufort cooperative is not out of the question.

In the past forty or so years, my view has progressed from Richard to the Tydder but now I accuse Nobody, with the strong possibility that Natural Causes was his accomplice.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons

Katy wrote:
<snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Carol responds:

And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."

In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.

Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams

Eileen, there was an article in the Ricardian by a lady called Jenny Powys Lybbe suggesting that MB could have been involved in Edward of Middleham's death because the woman who was in charge of Edward's nursery was Ann Olney whose husband Peter had Lancastrian connections and connections with MB. I can't remember all the details but I remember googling Peter Olney and I think someone has written a paper about him at one of the Irish universities. I can't remember which one. Probably another thing that requires more research.

--- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe Margaret Beaufort did not need access to the Tower to carry out the murder... if there was a murder. All she would have needed was someone in her pay inside who had access to the boys.
>
> This could be a good point to ask can anyone refresh my memory.....I have read...I cannot remember which book..it could be one of at least 3 and I cannot find it now...that there was someone in the household of Edward of Middleham who had connections to someone who had connections to Margaret...husband/wife?.Because I believe its possible that Edward was poisoned....Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > There have been some excellent posts this afternoon.
> >
> > There are FIVE murder suspects: Richard, Tydder, Buckingham, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Nobody.
> > The fictionalised tradition of More and Shakespeare, boosted by Tanner and Wright's prejudicial conclusions, favoured Richard but, as the years pass, he is becoming less and less probable, not least because the boys' illegitimacy removed his motive.
> > The Tydder's re-legitimisation of his wife's brothers gives him that motive but his actions in the days following Bosworth, in his years against "Perkin" and the confession he forced upon Tyrrell make him highly marginal.
> > Buckingham, acting for himself, would surely have found it unnecessary because of the illegitimacy. Buckingham, doing what he thought Richard wanted is a possibility in view of Richard's refusal to meet him - I am reminded of Claudius executing Cassius Chaera for killing Caligula (Claudius' nephew and predecessor as it happens). I think I know Staffords and they act for themselves.
> > Lady Margaret Beaufort is a possibility as she was in England during 1483, unlike her son, and could easily have known the solution without telling him. She would, however, have needed assistance to gain access to the Tower and to carry out the killings.
> > We are not aboard the Orient Express but a Buckingham-Beaufort cooperative is not out of the question.
> >
> > In the past forty or so years, my view has progressed from Richard to the Tydder but now I accuse Nobody, with the strong possibility that Natural Causes was his accomplice.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> >
> >
> >
> > Katy wrote:
> > <snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."
> >
> > In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html
> >
> > All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.
> >
> > Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks for that Mary....at least I am not the only one to have thought it...I didnt see the article in the Ricardian...which is a shame. Thanks for those names...yes those are the ones..thanks...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, there was an article in the Ricardian by a lady called Jenny Powys Lybbe suggesting that MB could have been involved in Edward of Middleham's death because the woman who was in charge of Edward's nursery was Ann Olney whose husband Peter had Lancastrian connections and connections with MB. I can't remember all the details but I remember googling Peter Olney and I think someone has written a paper about him at one of the Irish universities. I can't remember which one. Probably another thing that requires more research.
>
> --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe Margaret Beaufort did not need access to the Tower to carry out the murder... if there was a murder. All she would have needed was someone in her pay inside who had access to the boys.
> >
> > This could be a good point to ask can anyone refresh my memory.....I have read...I cannot remember which book..it could be one of at least 3 and I cannot find it now...that there was someone in the household of Edward of Middleham who had connections to someone who had connections to Margaret...husband/wife?.Because I believe its possible that Edward was poisoned....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There have been some excellent posts this afternoon.
> > >
> > > There are FIVE murder suspects: Richard, Tydder, Buckingham, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Nobody.
> > > The fictionalised tradition of More and Shakespeare, boosted by Tanner and Wright's prejudicial conclusions, favoured Richard but, as the years pass, he is becoming less and less probable, not least because the boys' illegitimacy removed his motive.
> > > The Tydder's re-legitimisation of his wife's brothers gives him that motive but his actions in the days following Bosworth, in his years against "Perkin" and the confession he forced upon Tyrrell make him highly marginal.
> > > Buckingham, acting for himself, would surely have found it unnecessary because of the illegitimacy. Buckingham, doing what he thought Richard wanted is a possibility in view of Richard's refusal to meet him - I am reminded of Claudius executing Cassius Chaera for killing Caligula (Claudius' nephew and predecessor as it happens). I think I know Staffords and they act for themselves.
> > > Lady Margaret Beaufort is a possibility as she was in England during 1483, unlike her son, and could easily have known the solution without telling him. She would, however, have needed assistance to gain access to the Tower and to carry out the killings.
> > > We are not aboard the Orient Express but a Buckingham-Beaufort cooperative is not out of the question.
> > >
> > > In the past forty or so years, my view has progressed from Richard to the Tydder but now I accuse Nobody, with the strong possibility that Natural Causes was his accomplice.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:45 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Katy wrote:
> > > <snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."
> > >
> > > In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html
> > >
> > > All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.
> > >
> > > Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

John Rastell in 1529 wrote the pasttimes of the people.
this is his summation of what was known/believed in his day regarding the princes.
 

Edwarde the .v. of that name, and eldyst
son to Edwardc the .iiii. of the age of .xiii.
yere, began his reygue ouer the realme of Eng-
lande, the .ix. day of Aprill, the yere of Chryst . M.CCCC.lxxxiii.
But anone as kynge Edwarde the .iiii. was dede, the lorde markes Dorset,
brother to the quene, hauynge the rule of this yonge kynge in the
marches of Wales, conueyed hym towarde London. But Rycharde,
he thought wolde resyst his yuell purpose. And, after that, caused
one doctour Shawe to preche at Poules crosse ; whiche, in his sermon,
shewed that the chylderne of kynge Edwarde the .iiii. were nat
legyttymate, nor ryghtfull inheretours to the crowne, with many
sclaunderous wordes, to the great abusyon of all the audyence, except
a fewe that fauoured the protectour.
And after that, at the Guylde hall, the duke of Buckyngham,
in a longe oracyon there by hym made, and exortacyon, with elygant
wordes, preferred the tytle of the said protectour of the realme.
And, durynge this whyle, the sayd protectour, by the counsel! of the
duke of Buckyngham, as it was sayd, caused this yonge kynge and
his brother to be conueyed to warde ; whiche were neuer after sene,
but there put to dethe.
But of the maner of the dethe of this yonge kynge, and of his
brother, there were dyuers opinyons ; but the most comyn opinyon
was, that they were smolderyd betwene two fetherbeddes, and that,
in the doynge, the yonger brother escaped from vnder the fether-
Deddes, and crept vnder the bedstede, and there lay naked a whyle,
tyll that they had smolderyd the yonge kyng so that he was surely
dede ; and, after y, one of them toke his brother from vnder the bedstede,
and hylde his face downe to the grounde with his one hande,
and with the other hande cut his throte bolle a sonder with a dagger.
It is a meruayle that any man coude haue so harde a harte to do so
cnaell a dede, saue onely that necessyte compelled them, for they
were so charged by the duke, the protectour, that if they shewed
nat to hym the bodyes of bothe those chylderne dede, on the mOrowe
after they were so comaunded, that than they them selfe shulde be
put to dethe. Wherfore they that were so comaunded to do it, were
compelled to fullfyll the protectours wyll.
And after that, the bodyes of these .ii. chylderne, as the opinyon
ranne, were bothe closed in a great heuy cheste, and, by the meanes
392
of. one that was secrete with the protectour, they were put in a shyppe
goynge to Flaunders ; and, whan the shyppe was in the blacke depes,
this man threwe bothe those dede bodyes, so closed ill the cheste,
ouer the hatches into the see ; and yet none of the maryners, nor
none in the shyppe, saue onely the sayd man, wyst what thynges it
was that was there so inclosed. Whiche sayenge dyuers men con-
iectured to be trewe, because that the bones of the sayd chylderne
coude neuer be founde buryed, nother in the Towre nor in no nother
place.
Another opinyon there is, that they whiche had the charge to
put them to dethe, caused one to crye sodaynly, ' Treason, treason/
Wherwith the chylderne beynge a ferde, desyred to knowe what was
best for them to do. And than they bad them hyde them selfe in a
great cheste, that no man shulde fynde them, and if any body came
into the chambre they wolde say they were nat there. And accord-
ynge as they counsellyd them, they crepte bothe into the cheste,
whiche, anone after, they locked. And than anone they buryed that
cheste in a great pytte vnder a steyre, which they before had made
therfore, and anone cast erthe theron, and so buryed them quycke.
Whiche cheste was after caste into I he blacke depes, as is before
sayde.
Than, the .xx. day of June, the sayd protectour toke vpon hym
as kynge of the realme, proclaymynge hym selfe kynge Rycharde the
Thyrde.
 
google book
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=eV8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22The+Pastime+of+People%22+rastell&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=f5DT_WzBQv&sig=axpGIXEEk4DaCDQ4k1_3708Od2A&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Pastime%20of%20People%22%20rastell&f=false
 
rastell's brother-in-law was thomas more.
 
here is a reasonably good bio on rastell. it shows just how well connected he was to "insider" information.
 
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/rastell-john-1468-1536

--- On Tue, 9/18/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 12:45 PM



 



Katy wrote:
<snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Carol responds:

And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."

In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.

Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams

Interesting, Roslyn. One of Rastell's stories - the corpses being taken to Flanders and dumped - is just a step or two from the boys (or one of them) being taken there live.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons



John Rastell in 1529 wrote the pasttimes of the people.
this is his summation of what was known/believed in his day regarding the princes.


Edwarde the .v. of that name, and eldyst
son to Edwardc the .iiii. of the age of .xiii.
yere, began his reygue ouer the realme of Eng-
lande, the .ix. day of Aprill, the yere of Chryst . M.CCCC.lxxxiii.
But anone as kynge Edwarde the .iiii. was dede, the lorde markes Dorset,
brother to the quene, hauynge the rule of this yonge kynge in the
marches of Wales, conueyed hym towarde London. But Rycharde,
he thought wolde resyst his yuell purpose. And, after that, caused
one doctour Shawe to preche at Poules crosse ; whiche, in his sermon,
shewed that the chylderne of kynge Edwarde the .iiii. were nat
legyttymate, nor ryghtfull inheretours to the crowne, with many
sclaunderous wordes, to the great abusyon of all the audyence, except
a fewe that fauoured the protectour.
And after that, at the Guylde hall, the duke of Buckyngham,
in a longe oracyon there by hym made, and exortacyon, with elygant
wordes, preferred the tytle of the said protectour of the realme.
And, durynge this whyle, the sayd protectour, by the counsel! of the
duke of Buckyngham, as it was sayd, caused this yonge kynge and
his brother to be conueyed to warde ; whiche were neuer after sene,
but there put to dethe.
But of the maner of the dethe of this yonge kynge, and of his
brother, there were dyuers opinyons ; but the most comyn opinyon
was, that they were smolderyd betwene two fetherbeddes, and that,
in the doynge, the yonger brother escaped from vnder the fether-
Deddes, and crept vnder the bedstede, and there lay naked a whyle,
tyll that they had smolderyd the yonge kyng so that he was surely
dede ; and, after y, one of them toke his brother from vnder the bedstede,
and hylde his face downe to the grounde with his one hande,
and with the other hande cut his throte bolle a sonder with a dagger.
It is a meruayle that any man coude haue so harde a harte to do so
cnaell a dede, saue onely that necessyte compelled them, for they
were so charged by the duke, the protectour, that if they shewed
nat to hym the bodyes of bothe those chylderne dede, on the mOrowe
after they were so comaunded, that than they them selfe shulde be
put to dethe. Wherfore they that were so comaunded to do it, were
compelled to fullfyll the protectours wyll.
And after that, the bodyes of these .ii. chylderne, as the opinyon
ranne, were bothe closed in a great heuy cheste, and, by the meanes
392
of. one that was secrete with the protectour, they were put in a shyppe
goynge to Flaunders ; and, whan the shyppe was in the blacke depes,
this man threwe bothe those dede bodyes, so closed ill the cheste,
ouer the hatches into the see ; and yet none of the maryners, nor
none in the shyppe, saue onely the sayd man, wyst what thynges it
was that was there so inclosed. Whiche sayenge dyuers men con-
iectured to be trewe, because that the bones of the sayd chylderne
coude neuer be founde buryed, nother in the Towre nor in no nother
place.
Another opinyon there is, that they whiche had the charge to
put them to dethe, caused one to crye sodaynly, ' Treason, treason/
Wherwith the chylderne beynge a ferde, desyred to knowe what was
best for them to do. And than they bad them hyde them selfe in a
great cheste, that no man shulde fynde them, and if any body came
into the chambre they wolde say they were nat there. And accord-
ynge as they counsellyd them, they crepte bothe into the cheste,
whiche, anone after, they locked. And than anone they buryed that
cheste in a great pytte vnder a steyre, which they before had made
therfore, and anone cast erthe theron, and so buryed them quycke.
Whiche cheste was after caste into I he blacke depes, as is before
sayde.
Than, the .xx. day of June, the sayd protectour toke vpon hym
as kynge of the realme, proclaymynge hym selfe kynge Rycharde the
Thyrde.

google book
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=eV8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22The+Pastime+of+People%22+rastell&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=f5DT_WzBQv&sig=axpGIXEEk4DaCDQ4k1_3708Od2A&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Pastime%20of%20People%22%20rastell&f=false

rastell's brother-in-law was thomas more.

here is a reasonably good bio on rastell. it shows just how well connected he was to "insider" information.

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/rastell-john-1468-1536

--- On Tue, 9/18/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Edward IV's sons
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 12:45 PM



Katy wrote:
<snip> A departure from the Water Gate would not have been highly visible, especially at night. A ship anchoring near the Tower might have caused notice, but a barge or small boat coming to the Water Gate and departing would have been commonplace even at night. All one would be able to see, even from the Tower itself, would have been dark shapes and the glow of lanterns.

Carol responds:

And if the boys were told by someone they trusted that they were in danger (as they were) of kidnapping and murder by forces loyal to Tudor and were being taken to safety, they would have gone quietly and willingly. Would they have known Sir James Tyrell, who, far from being Tyrell's unemployed knight sitting outside Richard's door ready to do his dirty work, was already in his service. I seem to recall Kendall saying that Tyrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen. If so, it would have been no surprise to anyone to see him in the company of young boys. Or, if they didn't know Tyrell, they would certainly have known "gentle Brackenbury."

In any case, my mind is *not* made up. I used to think that Buckingham killed the boys, but now I'm inclined to go with the theory that Tyrell took them to Gipping and that one at least survived was later associated with Sir Edward Brampton and a certain Yorkist lady named Margaret, who conveniently ignored his illegitimacy because she wanted a Yorkist on the throne. I'd love to discover the contents of Richard's secret correspondence with any of these people, but I imagine that the important parts were not committed to paper. Isolde Wigram has an intriguing discussion of this possibility on the RIII Society's American branch site: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

All the bones could prove is that the boys died in the Tower--or leave open the possibility that they escaped if the DNA doesn't match. I suspect (and, yes, hope) that they're Roman or pre-Roman burials placed there before the Tower was built. If a car park can be built over a medieval burial )not to mention a church and a later garden), a Norman keep can be built over a Celtic, Roman, or Anglo-Saxon grave.

Carol, who dreamed that her hair turned white overnight and hopes that there's no predictive value in dreams