But what happens to these latest bones?

I visited the site of the excavations yesterday. The Grey friar's dig was being filled in.

I found a way into the area where Richard was allegedly found, as featured in various photographs, but was asked to leave by an Asian guard. Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays there's access.

The exhibition in the guildhall gives the usual story about Richard, the latest finds with some ceramics and masonry from the Grey friar's monastery.

The man in Guildhall seemed uncertain about getting a DNA match for Richard after over 500 years, assuming that a descendant of Richard's sister exists. Some women have given birth to children not sired by their husbands. There's no photo of these bones available.

I did raise the question of how Richard could've got an arrow in his back if he was wearing armour, but the armour was naff in those days and not necessarily protection against the longbow.

However, the woman and man in Leicester cathedral seem to be making plans for commercial reasons to house what may well be Richard's remains.

The fact that the remains were in the choir where recorded by Rous (not one of the world's most accurate historians), they had received battle wounds (it's generally recorded that Richard put up a considerable fight) and the curvature of the spine (hardly his fault) was reported by some, does suggest that these remains are his.

But can we be sure? Some members of the history fraternity have raised considerable objections to the alleged bones of Edward V, so does the same apply here?

But what happens to these latest bones?

On 18/09/2012 14:18, HI wrote:
> The man in Guildhall seemed uncertain about getting a DNA match for Richard after over 500 years, assuming that a descendant of Richard's sister exists. Some women have given birth to children not sired by their husbands. There's no photo of these bones available.
>
But at that time they didn't give birth to children who didn't share
their own DNA. Husbands are irrelevant. mtDNA changes very slowly,
whereas the sort that gets spliced in every child can be barely
recognisable after a few generations.

It's odd that mtDNA problems which could be overcome by the use of
someone else's (a child having 'three parents') are in the news in the
UK this week.

Best wishes
Christine

The man at the guildhall, as he was serving on the desk, may not be an expert on mtDNA. Neither am I. But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly.

Let's face it. The bones, for commercial reasons to attract tourism: Leicester looks like it needs it, will probably be claimed as Richard III's and then entombed and more or less forgotten. Not all the king's horse or all the king's men will put him back together again.


--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> On 18/09/2012 14:18, HI wrote:
> > The man in Guildhall seemed uncertain about getting a DNA match for Richard after over 500 years, assuming that a descendant of Richard's sister exists. Some women have given birth to children not sired by their husbands. There's no photo of these bones available.
> >
> But at that time they didn't give birth to children who didn't share
> their own DNA. Husbands are irrelevant. mtDNA changes very slowly,
> whereas the sort that gets spliced in every child can be barely
> recognisable after a few generations.
>
> It's odd that mtDNA problems which could be overcome by the use of
> someone else's (a child having 'three parents') are in the news in the
> UK this week.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>

We speak of an unbroken female line from Richard's elder sister - and mater certa est.

----- Original Message -----
From: HI
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:18 PM
Subject: But what happens to these latest bones?





I visited the site of the excavations yesterday. The Grey friar's dig was being filled in.

I found a way into the area where Richard was allegedly found, as featured in various photographs, but was asked to leave by an Asian guard. Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays there's access.

The exhibition in the guildhall gives the usual story about Richard, the latest finds with some ceramics and masonry from the Grey friar's monastery.

The man in Guildhall seemed uncertain about getting a DNA match for Richard after over 500 years, assuming that a descendant of Richard's sister exists. Some women have given birth to children not sired by their husbands. There's no photo of these bones available.

I did raise the question of how Richard could've got an arrow in his back if he was wearing armour, but the armour was naff in those days and not necessarily protection against the longbow.

However, the woman and man in Leicester cathedral seem to be making plans for commercial reasons to house what may well be Richard's remains.

The fact that the remains were in the choir where recorded by Rous (not one of the world's most accurate historians), they had received battle wounds (it's generally recorded that Richard put up a considerable fight) and the curvature of the spine (hardly his fault) was reported by some, does suggest that these remains are his.

But can we be sure? Some members of the history fraternity have raised considerable objections to the alleged bones of Edward V, so does the same apply here?

But what happens to these latest bones?

I have mentioned this before, as has Annette, permission had to be got from the government to disinter the bones, and one of the condition is that they be reburied in, or as close as possible to, the site they were found. So Leicester is the logical site as it is on the other side of the road from where they were found. On top of which Leicester Cathedral is the only cathedral to have a plaque in remembrance of Richard and his death nearby.
Paul

On 18 Sep 2012, at 14:48, hi.dung wrote:

> The man at the guildhall, as he was serving on the desk, may not be an expert on mtDNA. Neither am I. But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly.
>
> Let's face it. The bones, for commercial reasons to attract tourism: Leicester looks like it needs it, will probably be claimed as Richard III's and then entombed and more or less forgotten. Not all the king's horse or all the king's men will put him back together again.
>
>
> --- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/09/2012 14:18, HI wrote:
>>> The man in Guildhall seemed uncertain about getting a DNA match for Richard after over 500 years, assuming that a descendant of Richard's sister exists. Some women have given birth to children not sired by their husbands. There's no photo of these bones available.
>>>
>> But at that time they didn't give birth to children who didn't share
>> their own DNA. Husbands are irrelevant. mtDNA changes very slowly,
>> whereas the sort that gets spliced in every child can be barely
>> recognisable after a few generations.
>>
>> It's odd that mtDNA problems which could be overcome by the use of
>> someone else's (a child having 'three parents') are in the news in the
>> UK this week.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Christine
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Armour was good enough to stop longbow arrows 70 years earlier at Azincourt; only a crossbow bolt would have been a danger to an armoured knight in 1485.

See this Documentary, especially at 19:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0%c2%a0


Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk&feature=related%c2%a0


And This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs&feature=related%c2%a0




________________________________
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 14:18
Subject: But what happens to these latest bones?


 


I did raise the question of how Richard could've got an arrow in his back if he was wearing armour, but the armour was naff in those days and not necessarily protection against the longbow.

"hi.dung" wrote:
> <snip>
But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly. <snip>

Carol responds:

Five hundred years is virtually nothing with regard to mitochondrial DNA because it isn't shuffled around like nuclear DNA and can be traced back through various "daughters" to Mitochondrial Eve, the 200,000-year-old female-line ancestor of every living human being (according to the geneticists). Scientists estimate that one mutation will occur every 6,000 to 12,000 years, so the chances that Richard's will be identical to those of his mother's descendants a mere 599 or so years later are excellent. (A single mutation would make the results inconclusive but wouldn't rule out a relationship.) Along with the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA is the best means that we have of determining direct ancestry (or at least of ruling it out). If the Y chromosome is also a match for, say, the Duke of Beaufort (or George of Clarence or some other man in the same direct line), the identity would be certain given the location of the burial and other indications that the skeleton is probably Richard's.

There are a number of informative articles online, most of them concerned with Mitochondrial Eve, Neanderthals, or Tsar Nicholas, which discuss mitochondrial DNA (and its differences from nuclear DNA) in some detail. Here's one of many: http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf And here's John Ashown-Hill's own Richard III DNA page: http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm with links to other related topics.

Carol

Thank you for that. DNA has not been a specialasation of mine. I hope Richard III is identified, despite the up themselves nay saying trolls out there. The opposition to the alleged bones of Edward V seems to allow no possibility that they are Edward V's, just because it doesn't fit in with pre-conceptions. Being pro-Richard can be just as bigoted as being anti-him.

I came across the following:

"The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. ( Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."

So, hopefully it's that easy if you think this is simple!
Richard III should be treated with respect and I wish people would stop trying to turn him into a devil or angel. I don't think he was either.


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "hi.dung" wrote:
> > <snip>
> But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Five hundred years is virtually nothing with regard to mitochondrial DNA because it isn't shuffled around like nuclear DNA and can be traced back through various "daughters" to Mitochondrial Eve, the 200,000-year-old female-line ancestor of every living human being (according to the geneticists). Scientists estimate that one mutation will occur every 6,000 to 12,000 years, so the chances that Richard's will be identical to those of his mother's descendants a mere 599 or so years later are excellent. (A single mutation would make the results inconclusive but wouldn't rule out a relationship.) Along with the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA is the best means that we have of determining direct ancestry (or at least of ruling it out). If the Y chromosome is also a match for, say, the Duke of Beaufort (or George of Clarence or some other man in the same direct line), the identity would be certain given the location of the burial and other indications that the skeleton is probably Richard's.
>
> There are a number of informative articles online, most of them concerned with Mitochondrial Eve, Neanderthals, or Tsar Nicholas, which discuss mitochondrial DNA (and its differences from nuclear DNA) in some detail. Here's one of many: http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf And here's John Ashown-Hill's own Richard III DNA page: http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm with links to other related topics.
>
> Carol
>

I can't speak for anyone else, but my personal attitude to the remains in the Westminster Abbey urn is as follows:

(1) The assumptions made in 1674 were without foundation in any historical fact or source whatsoever, other than the unique, unfinished 'satirical drama' written by Thomas More some time in 1515-25, which originated the unattributed story that they were buried at the Tower of London. No credible source (by which I mean some source likely to know something) has ever suggested that their bodies were buried at the Tower. Certainly Vergil, writing nearer the date of the event than More, never suggested where they were buried - and Vergil did at least attempt to write history, which experts like Sylvester don't believe More was even trying to do. By the way, I found the source of that quote of Sylvester's, which was taken from his discussion in Volume 2 of the Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St Thomas More (New Haven, 1963).

(2) There is no way of verifying whether the bones that ended up in the urn were the ones thrown on the rubbish heap. The depth of the find was ridiculously deep for any such burial to have taken place in the secret manner described by Thomas More, and far too deep for any such excavation (down to the foundations!) to have been done in secret RIGHT NEXT TO the entrance to the White Tower, a place where there was constant daily traffic and probably nightly traffic too, seeing that it was the one solitary entrance. Plus the location of the find was precisely where Thomas More said the bodies would NOT be found because a priest had removed them to a fitter place (and the sole source of the manner of burial, let us again remember, is Thomas More's).

(3) The examination of these bones in 1933 was incredibly unscientific and even introduced suggestions, later retracted, which were designed to bolster the likelihood that (a) the children were related and (b) that one showed evidence of bloodstains caused by smothering, which was nonsense, there were no bloodstains. Professor Wright was unable to determine their gender, antiquity or age at death, and no scientist who has since evaluated his records and those of Dr Northcroft has ever been able to reach a firm conclusion as to ANY of these three matters either. In fact the dental evidence tends to be more consistent with girls than boys.

(4) I have never read any reasoned argument in favour of identifying these remains as those of Edward V and his brother which offers ANY way of overcoming the sum total of these many difficulties (and there are more, believe me). I would dearly love to read one ... and I've asked this before - do we have any takers?

Am I bigoted? Am I dubious because the bones don't fit my preconceptions about them? What exactly are my preconceptions? (Look in my book and see if you can find any - if you really can't find them I'll even suggest a page number!) In all seriousness I wish the bones of Edward IV's sons really WOULD turn up, wherever they are, even if against all the odds there are some of them in that urn. This unproductive controversy about "are they, aren't they" has clouded the issue for hundreds of years, and it sets people's teeth on edge because only one side ever seems to feel the need to fully substantiate its arguments, as opposed to quoting an unsupported story which isn't compatible with the discovery of the bones anyway.

Even if the urn were prised open again and even if Tanner and Wright were proved 100 percent correct after all, I wish people would realise that it would still offer NO solution to the question of how/when they met their end and who was responsible. It's a mystery. Some things just are.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: hi.dung
To:
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: But what happens to these latest bones?



Thank you for that. DNA has not been a specialasation of mine. I hope Richard III is identified, despite the up themselves nay saying trolls out there. The opposition to the alleged bones of Edward V seems to allow no possibility that they are Edward V's, just because it doesn't fit in with pre-conceptions. Being pro-Richard can be just as bigoted as being anti-him.

I came across the following:

"The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. ( Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."

So, hopefully it's that easy if you think this is simple!
Richard III should be treated with respect and I wish people would stop trying to turn him into a devil or angel. I don't think he was either.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "hi.dung" wrote:
> > <snip>
> But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Five hundred years is virtually nothing with regard to mitochondrial DNA because it isn't shuffled around like nuclear DNA and can be traced back through various "daughters" to Mitochondrial Eve, the 200,000-year-old female-line ancestor of every living human being (according to the geneticists). Scientists estimate that one mutation will occur every 6,000 to 12,000 years, so the chances that Richard's will be identical to those of his mother's descendants a mere 599 or so years later are excellent. (A single mutation would make the results inconclusive but wouldn't rule out a relationship.) Along with the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA is the best means that we have of determining direct ancestry (or at least of ruling it out). If the Y chromosome is also a match for, say, the Duke of Beaufort (or George of Clarence or some other man in the same direct line), the identity would be certain given the location of the burial and other indications that the skeleton is probably Richard's.
>
> There are a number of informative articles online, most of them concerned with Mitochondrial Eve, Neanderthals, or Tsar Nicholas, which discuss mitochondrial DNA (and its differences from nuclear DNA) in some detail. Here's one of many: http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf And here's John Ashown-Hill's own Richard III DNA page: http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm with links to other related topics.
>
> Carol
>

If the bones found (or reputed to be found) in the Tower, wherever they were
found, whatever's happened to them in the meantime, if they can be
identified as the bones of the princes, and if it can be shown that they met
their deaths through foul play, then that would not, nor has it ever been
suggested that it would, solve the mystery of who murdered them. By the same
token, if it is shown that these bones, for whatever reason, can't be the
remains of the princes, that doesn't in any way prove or support speculation
that they were spirited out of the Tower and sent to Burgundy. Until
something more concrete than speculation, on either side of the debate,
comes along, then all we can say is that they vanished from view and from
the record. Richard III as paragon of virtue didn't exist. Richard III as
inhuman monster didn't exist. He was as he was and did as he did, good, bad
and indifferent, whatever anyone's view might be. The fate of the princes
is, as Annette says, a particularly unsatisfying and frustrating topic of
discussion. All I can say is that there are a lot of possibilities, pretty
much all of them unprovable.

Karen


From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:19:41 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: But what happens to these
latest bones?






I can't speak for anyone else, but my personal attitude to the remains in
the Westminster Abbey urn is as follows:

(1) The assumptions made in 1674 were without foundation in any historical
fact or source whatsoever, other than the unique, unfinished 'satirical
drama' written by Thomas More some time in 1515-25, which originated the
unattributed story that they were buried at the Tower of London. No credible
source (by which I mean some source likely to know something) has ever
suggested that their bodies were buried at the Tower. Certainly Vergil,
writing nearer the date of the event than More, never suggested where they
were buried - and Vergil did at least attempt to write history, which
experts like Sylvester don't believe More was even trying to do. By the way,
I found the source of that quote of Sylvester's, which was taken from his
discussion in Volume 2 of the Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St
Thomas More (New Haven, 1963).

(2) There is no way of verifying whether the bones that ended up in the urn
were the ones thrown on the rubbish heap. The depth of the find was
ridiculously deep for any such burial to have taken place in the secret
manner described by Thomas More, and far too deep for any such excavation
(down to the foundations!) to have been done in secret RIGHT NEXT TO the
entrance to the White Tower, a place where there was constant daily traffic
and probably nightly traffic too, seeing that it was the one solitary
entrance. Plus the location of the find was precisely where Thomas More said
the bodies would NOT be found because a priest had removed them to a fitter
place (and the sole source of the manner of burial, let us again remember,
is Thomas More's).

(3) The examination of these bones in 1933 was incredibly unscientific and
even introduced suggestions, later retracted, which were designed to bolster
the likelihood that (a) the children were related and (b) that one showed
evidence of bloodstains caused by smothering, which was nonsense, there were
no bloodstains. Professor Wright was unable to determine their gender,
antiquity or age at death, and no scientist who has since evaluated his
records and those of Dr Northcroft has ever been able to reach a firm
conclusion as to ANY of these three matters either. In fact the dental
evidence tends to be more consistent with girls than boys.

(4) I have never read any reasoned argument in favour of identifying these
remains as those of Edward V and his brother which offers ANY way of
overcoming the sum total of these many difficulties (and there are more,
believe me). I would dearly love to read one ... and I've asked this before
- do we have any takers?

Am I bigoted? Am I dubious because the bones don't fit my preconceptions
about them? What exactly are my preconceptions? (Look in my book and see if
you can find any - if you really can't find them I'll even suggest a page
number!) In all seriousness I wish the bones of Edward IV's sons really
WOULD turn up, wherever they are, even if against all the odds there are
some of them in that urn. This unproductive controversy about "are they,
aren't they" has clouded the issue for hundreds of years, and it sets
people's teeth on edge because only one side ever seems to feel the need to
fully substantiate its arguments, as opposed to quoting an unsupported story
which isn't compatible with the discovery of the bones anyway.

Even if the urn were prised open again and even if Tanner and Wright were
proved 100 percent correct after all, I wish people would realise that it
would still offer NO solution to the question of how/when they met their end
and who was responsible. It's a mystery. Some things just are.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: hi.dung
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: But what happens to these latest
bones?

Thank you for that. DNA has not been a specialasation of mine. I hope
Richard III is identified, despite the up themselves nay saying trolls out
there. The opposition to the alleged bones of Edward V seems to allow no
possibility that they are Edward V's, just because it doesn't fit in with
pre-conceptions. Being pro-Richard can be just as bigoted as being anti-him.

I came across the following:

"The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers
to trace maternal lineage far back in time. ( Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally
inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is
accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the
hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as
with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These
440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals
(either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal
lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge
Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the
matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the
Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to
discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."

So, hopefully it's that easy if you think this is simple!
Richard III should be treated with respect and I wish people would stop
trying to turn him into a devil or angel. I don't think he was either.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "hi.dung" wrote:
> > <snip>
> But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change
slowly. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Five hundred years is virtually nothing with regard to mitochondrial DNA
because it isn't shuffled around like nuclear DNA and can be traced back
through various "daughters" to Mitochondrial Eve, the 200,000-year-old
female-line ancestor of every living human being (according to the
geneticists). Scientists estimate that one mutation will occur every 6,000
to 12,000 years, so the chances that Richard's will be identical to those of
his mother's descendants a mere 599 or so years later are excellent. (A
single mutation would make the results inconclusive but wouldn't rule out a
relationship.) Along with the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA is the best
means that we have of determining direct ancestry (or at least of ruling it
out). If the Y chromosome is also a match for, say, the Duke of Beaufort (or
George of Clarence or some other man in the same direct line), the identity
would be certain given the location of the burial and other indications that
the skeleton is probably Richard's.
>
> There are a number of informative articles online, most of them concerned
with Mitochondrial Eve, Neanderthals, or Tsar Nicholas, which discuss
mitochondrial DNA (and its differences from nuclear DNA) in some detail.
Here's one of many:
http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf And here's John
Ashown-Hill's own Richard III DNA page:
http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm with links to other
related topics.
>
> Carol
>

Brilliant, Annette. Even this afternoon, I have come across an "informed person" (not on here, I don't think) who, on point 2, treats More as a Fifth Gospel up to and including the "burial under the stairs" but ignores his report of their exhumation and removal. She still regards the bones as proven to be male, late medieval and of the right ages.
Is "bone-headed" the right word, I wonder?

----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: But what happens to these latest bones?



I can't speak for anyone else, but my personal attitude to the remains in the Westminster Abbey urn is as follows:

(1) The assumptions made in 1674 were without foundation in any historical fact or source whatsoever, other than the unique, unfinished 'satirical drama' written by Thomas More some time in 1515-25, which originated the unattributed story that they were buried at the Tower of London. No credible source (by which I mean some source likely to know something) has ever suggested that their bodies were buried at the Tower. Certainly Vergil, writing nearer the date of the event than More, never suggested where they were buried - and Vergil did at least attempt to write history, which experts like Sylvester don't believe More was even trying to do. By the way, I found the source of that quote of Sylvester's, which was taken from his discussion in Volume 2 of the Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St Thomas More (New Haven, 1963).

(2) There is no way of verifying whether the bones that ended up in the urn were the ones thrown on the rubbish heap. The depth of the find was ridiculously deep for any such burial to have taken place in the secret manner described by Thomas More, and far too deep for any such excavation (down to the foundations!) to have been done in secret RIGHT NEXT TO the entrance to the White Tower, a place where there was constant daily traffic and probably nightly traffic too, seeing that it was the one solitary entrance. Plus the location of the find was precisely where Thomas More said the bodies would NOT be found because a priest had removed them to a fitter place (and the sole source of the manner of burial, let us again remember, is Thomas More's).

(3) The examination of these bones in 1933 was incredibly unscientific and even introduced suggestions, later retracted, which were designed to bolster the likelihood that (a) the children were related and (b) that one showed evidence of bloodstains caused by smothering, which was nonsense, there were no bloodstains. Professor Wright was unable to determine their gender, antiquity or age at death, and no scientist who has since evaluated his records and those of Dr Northcroft has ever been able to reach a firm conclusion as to ANY of these three matters either. In fact the dental evidence tends to be more consistent with girls than boys.

(4) I have never read any reasoned argument in favour of identifying these remains as those of Edward V and his brother which offers ANY way of overcoming the sum total of these many difficulties (and there are more, believe me). I would dearly love to read one ... and I've asked this before - do we have any takers?

Am I bigoted? Am I dubious because the bones don't fit my preconceptions about them? What exactly are my preconceptions? (Look in my book and see if you can find any - if you really can't find them I'll even suggest a page number!) In all seriousness I wish the bones of Edward IV's sons really WOULD turn up, wherever they are, even if against all the odds there are some of them in that urn. This unproductive controversy about "are they, aren't they" has clouded the issue for hundreds of years, and it sets people's teeth on edge because only one side ever seems to feel the need to fully substantiate its arguments, as opposed to quoting an unsupported story which isn't compatible with the discovery of the bones anyway.

Even if the urn were prised open again and even if Tanner and Wright were proved 100 percent correct after all, I wish people would realise that it would still offer NO solution to the question of how/when they met their end and who was responsible. It's a mystery. Some things just are.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: hi.dung
To:
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: But what happens to these latest bones?

Thank you for that. DNA has not been a specialasation of mine. I hope Richard III is identified, despite the up themselves nay saying trolls out there. The opposition to the alleged bones of Edward V seems to allow no possibility that they are Edward V's, just because it doesn't fit in with pre-conceptions. Being pro-Richard can be just as bigoted as being anti-him.

I came across the following:

"The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. ( Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."

So, hopefully it's that easy if you think this is simple!
Richard III should be treated with respect and I wish people would stop trying to turn him into a devil or angel. I don't think he was either.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "hi.dung" wrote:
> > <snip>
> But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Five hundred years is virtually nothing with regard to mitochondrial DNA because it isn't shuffled around like nuclear DNA and can be traced back through various "daughters" to Mitochondrial Eve, the 200,000-year-old female-line ancestor of every living human being (according to the geneticists). Scientists estimate that one mutation will occur every 6,000 to 12,000 years, so the chances that Richard's will be identical to those of his mother's descendants a mere 599 or so years later are excellent. (A single mutation would make the results inconclusive but wouldn't rule out a relationship.) Along with the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA is the best means that we have of determining direct ancestry (or at least of ruling it out). If the Y chromosome is also a match for, say, the Duke of Beaufort (or George of Clarence or some other man in the same direct line), the identity would be certain given the location of the burial and other indications that the skeleton is probably Richard's.
>
> There are a number of informative articles online, most of them concerned with Mitochondrial Eve, Neanderthals, or Tsar Nicholas, which discuss mitochondrial DNA (and its differences from nuclear DNA) in some detail. Here's one of many: http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf And here's John Ashown-Hill's own Richard III DNA page: http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm with links to other related topics.
>
> Carol
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> If the bones found (or reputed to be found) in the Tower, wherever they were found, whatever's happened to them in the meantime, if they can be identified as the bones of the princes, and if it can be shown that they met their deaths through foul play, then that would not, nor has it ever been suggested that it would, solve the mystery of who murdered them. By the same token, if it is shown that these bones, for whatever reason, can't be the remains of the princes, that doesn't in any way prove or support speculation that they were spirited out of the Tower and sent to Burgundy. Until something more concrete than speculation, on either side of the debate,comes along, then all we can say is that they vanished from view and from the record. <snip>

Carol responds:

It seems from your argument that you're adamantly opposed to a scientific examination of the bones, primarily because it would not solve the mystery. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I certainly agree that such an examination would neither prove that they escaped (if they were, say, the bones of pre-Norman children) or that Richard (or anyone) murdered them (if they proved to be the bones of his nephews). However, substituting a modern scientific investigation for the flawed one from the 1930s would at least determine whether the assumption by Richard's detractors that the bones in the urn are those of Richard's is nephews is valid or invalid. If, as I suspect, the assumption is invalid, his detractors would be forced, as you say, to base their arguments on "something more concrete than speculation." In other words, the fact that such an examination would not solve the mystery, though true, seems to me to be insufficient reason not to find out as much as we can and remove, if possible, the "proof" of Richard's chief "crime" from the discussion.

Carol

Carol

Although its true, as has been said on here...that if the bones in the Urn were re-examined and found to be the Princes it still would not prove who had them murdered, the fact remains that for a vast number of people out there, still believe they are the Princes and that their wicked uncle murdered them. In fact it probably is the one abiding story that people link to Richard...they think ..bones in urn equates to uncle killed them. I dont think that one of numerous stories printed in the press this last week has not mentioned this so called fact or maybe the word is suspicion. This is why this part of the Ricardian story is still of massive importance. And it needs to be addressed.

If the bones should be re-examined and proven, as I personally believe, they are not the Princes, and this particular story put to bed once and for all then the positive impact it would have on Richard's reputation with those that still ,despite all odds, maybe through lack of research, believe this story would be enormous.

I personally hope we never tire of it, or get bored with it....Its too important. Eileen


--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Brilliant, Annette. Even this afternoon, I have come across an "informed person" (not on here, I don't think) who, on point 2, treats More as a Fifth Gospel up to and including the "burial under the stairs" but ignores his report of their exhumation and removal. She still regards the bones as proven to be male, late medieval and of the right ages.
> Is "bone-headed" the right word, I wonder?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: But what happens to these latest bones?
>
>
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but my personal attitude to the remains in the Westminster Abbey urn is as follows:
>
> (1) The assumptions made in 1674 were without foundation in any historical fact or source whatsoever, other than the unique, unfinished 'satirical drama' written by Thomas More some time in 1515-25, which originated the unattributed story that they were buried at the Tower of London. No credible source (by which I mean some source likely to know something) has ever suggested that their bodies were buried at the Tower. Certainly Vergil, writing nearer the date of the event than More, never suggested where they were buried - and Vergil did at least attempt to write history, which experts like Sylvester don't believe More was even trying to do. By the way, I found the source of that quote of Sylvester's, which was taken from his discussion in Volume 2 of the Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St Thomas More (New Haven, 1963).
>
> (2) There is no way of verifying whether the bones that ended up in the urn were the ones thrown on the rubbish heap. The depth of the find was ridiculously deep for any such burial to have taken place in the secret manner described by Thomas More, and far too deep for any such excavation (down to the foundations!) to have been done in secret RIGHT NEXT TO the entrance to the White Tower, a place where there was constant daily traffic and probably nightly traffic too, seeing that it was the one solitary entrance. Plus the location of the find was precisely where Thomas More said the bodies would NOT be found because a priest had removed them to a fitter place (and the sole source of the manner of burial, let us again remember, is Thomas More's).
>
> (3) The examination of these bones in 1933 was incredibly unscientific and even introduced suggestions, later retracted, which were designed to bolster the likelihood that (a) the children were related and (b) that one showed evidence of bloodstains caused by smothering, which was nonsense, there were no bloodstains. Professor Wright was unable to determine their gender, antiquity or age at death, and no scientist who has since evaluated his records and those of Dr Northcroft has ever been able to reach a firm conclusion as to ANY of these three matters either. In fact the dental evidence tends to be more consistent with girls than boys.
>
> (4) I have never read any reasoned argument in favour of identifying these remains as those of Edward V and his brother which offers ANY way of overcoming the sum total of these many difficulties (and there are more, believe me). I would dearly love to read one ... and I've asked this before - do we have any takers?
>
> Am I bigoted? Am I dubious because the bones don't fit my preconceptions about them? What exactly are my preconceptions? (Look in my book and see if you can find any - if you really can't find them I'll even suggest a page number!) In all seriousness I wish the bones of Edward IV's sons really WOULD turn up, wherever they are, even if against all the odds there are some of them in that urn. This unproductive controversy about "are they, aren't they" has clouded the issue for hundreds of years, and it sets people's teeth on edge because only one side ever seems to feel the need to fully substantiate its arguments, as opposed to quoting an unsupported story which isn't compatible with the discovery of the bones anyway.
>
> Even if the urn were prised open again and even if Tanner and Wright were proved 100 percent correct after all, I wish people would realise that it would still offer NO solution to the question of how/when they met their end and who was responsible. It's a mystery. Some things just are.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: hi.dung
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: But what happens to these latest bones?
>
> Thank you for that. DNA has not been a specialasation of mine. I hope Richard III is identified, despite the up themselves nay saying trolls out there. The opposition to the alleged bones of Edward V seems to allow no possibility that they are Edward V's, just because it doesn't fit in with pre-conceptions. Being pro-Richard can be just as bigoted as being anti-him.
>
> I came across the following:
>
> "The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. ( Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."
>
> So, hopefully it's that easy if you think this is simple!
> Richard III should be treated with respect and I wish people would stop trying to turn him into a devil or angel. I don't think he was either.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > "hi.dung" wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > But 500+ years is a long time to act on mtDNA even if it does change slowly. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Five hundred years is virtually nothing with regard to mitochondrial DNA because it isn't shuffled around like nuclear DNA and can be traced back through various "daughters" to Mitochondrial Eve, the 200,000-year-old female-line ancestor of every living human being (according to the geneticists). Scientists estimate that one mutation will occur every 6,000 to 12,000 years, so the chances that Richard's will be identical to those of his mother's descendants a mere 599 or so years later are excellent. (A single mutation would make the results inconclusive but wouldn't rule out a relationship.) Along with the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA is the best means that we have of determining direct ancestry (or at least of ruling it out). If the Y chromosome is also a match for, say, the Duke of Beaufort (or George of Clarence or some other man in the same direct line), the identity would be certain given the location of the burial and other indications that the skeleton is probably Richard's.
> >
> > There are a number of informative articles online, most of them concerned with Mitochondrial Eve, Neanderthals, or Tsar Nicholas, which discuss mitochondrial DNA (and its differences from nuclear DNA) in some detail. Here's one of many: http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf And here's John Ashown-Hill's own Richard III DNA page: http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm with links to other related topics.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm not in the least opposed to a modern scientific examination of the
bones. I think that all that would be able to prove is whether the bones are
the remains of the princes or not, but that would be something more than we
know right now, so by all means, they should be properly examined.

It isn't just Richard's detractors who need to base their arguments on
"something more concrete than speculation". His supporters do, as well. And
so do those of us seeking a more balanced view of him. In fact, I think it's
even more of an imperative there. I'm not very patient with arguments on
either extreme that rely solely on 'well, it could have happened that way'.
By all means, we can discuss the possibility of murder, death by
misadventure or illness, relocation, or anything else for that matter, but
without anything solid to back any of those arguments up, it just ends up in
a pointless, and often heated, slog.

I get a sense, from this forum and various facebook groups (but not, I must
stress, from everyone in the Society) of 'if you're not with us, you're
against us'. I'm not with the more extreme 'saintly' view of Richard, nor am
I with the more extreme 'monster' view. I fall somewhere between them, not
exactly halfway, but somewhere in between. (I grow weary of explaining this,
I really do. That I'm a member of the Society really should be a clue that
I'm not the enemy.) If someone, from either of those extremes makes a
statement as if it were fact, without anything to back it up, then it should
be questioned. Just as if I make a statement as if it were fact, I expect to
be asked to back it up and, if I can't, have it questioned. Now, with his
remains possibly found, it's the perfect time to construct a balanced and
more realistic picture of Richard.

Karen


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:32:23 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: But what happens to these latest
bones?






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> If the bones found (or reputed to be found) in the Tower, wherever they were
found, whatever's happened to them in the meantime, if they can be identified as
the bones of the princes, and if it can be shown that they met their deaths
through foul play, then that would not, nor has it ever been suggested that it
would, solve the mystery of who murdered them. By the same token, if it is shown
that these bones, for whatever reason, can't be the remains of the princes, that
doesn't in any way prove or support speculation that they were spirited out of
the Tower and sent to Burgundy. Until something more concrete than speculation,
on either side of the debate,comes along, then all we can say is that they
vanished from view and from the record. <snip>

Carol responds:

It seems from your argument that you're adamantly opposed to a scientific
examination of the bones, primarily because it would not solve the mystery.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I certainly agree that such an examination
would neither prove that they escaped (if they were, say, the bones of
pre-Norman children) or that Richard (or anyone) murdered them (if they
proved to be the bones of his nephews). However, substituting a modern
scientific investigation for the flawed one from the 1930s would at least
determine whether the assumption by Richard's detractors that the bones in
the urn are those of Richard's is nephews is valid or invalid. If, as I
suspect, the assumption is invalid, his detractors would be forced, as you
say, to base their arguments on "something more concrete than speculation."
In other words, the fact that such an examination would not solve the
mystery, though true, seems to me to be insufficient reason not to find out
as much as we can and remove, if possible, the "proof" of Richard's chief
"crime" from the discussion.

Carol

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I'm not in the least opposed to a modern scientific examination of the bones. I think that all that would be able to prove is whether the bones are the remains of the princes or not, but that would be something more than we know right now, so by all means, they should be properly examined.
>
> It isn't just Richard's detractors who need to base their arguments on "something more concrete than speculation". His supporters do, as well. And so do those of us seeking a more balanced view of him. In fact, I think it's even more of an imperative there. <snip> If someone, from either of those extremes makes a statement as if it were fact, without anything to back it up, then it should be questioned. Just as if I make a statement as if it were fact, I expect to be asked to back it up and, if I can't, have it questioned. Now, with his remains possibly found, it's the perfect time to construct a balanced and more realistic picture of Richard.

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for the clarification. I'm glad to know that you're not opposed to a scientific examination of the bones in the urn. I certainly agree with you that now is "the perfect time to construct a balanced and more realistic picture of Richard" and that we ought to support our assertions with evidence and cite our sources. (I can't tell you how many times I said the same thing to my former college students.)

You're absolutely right that it's even more important for those of us seeking a balanced view of Richard to base our arguments on something more than speculation when we're trying to persuade others (especially skeptics or those who know nothing about Richard) to share our views, which is what I tried to do in my responses to Simon Jenkins and what you clearly try to do in your blog. Here, though, in our own home territory, I see nothing wrong with a little speculation about, for example, how Richard's nephews might have escaped if Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York and what happened to his brother Edward. There's nothing wrong with trying to solve a mystery as long as we realize that we haven't really solved it. But I think we're on more dangerous ground when we speculate about motives whether the person involved is Richard, Henry VII, Edward IV, Hastings, Elizabeth Woodville, or anyone else. We can never know what's in anyone else's mind, not even those of the people closest to us. We have to be responsible, weighing and analyzing the evidence, and even then we can never be sure.

Anyway, Karen, thanks again for your explanation. I do understand that you're trying, like most of us, to be fair (and possibly trying a bit harder to be objective than those of us who admire Richard and strongly believe that he was wronged by history). And, again, you're absolutely right that when we're making assertions about Richard or any of the other people involved in his history, we should back them up with solid evidence or sources (and even then we may not be certain that we're interpreting the evidence correctly). I agree that there's nothing worse for the cause of objective analysis than extreme views or opinions stated as fact. There's room for speculation, in my view, but it shouldn't be confused with inferences based on evidence and reasoned argument. And that includes evidence that challenges our accepted views. If the bones in the urn turn out to be those of Richard's nephews, I, for one, will have to revise my thinking. In the meantime, those of us who are interested can examine the facts of the case, such as where the bones were found in relation to More's story and the flaws in the original attempt at scientific analysis.

Carol

Dear Karen,

> I get a sense, from this forum and various facebook groups (but
> not, I must
> stress, from everyone in the Society) of 'if you're not with us,
> you're
> against us'. I'm not with the more extreme 'saintly' view of
> Richard, nor am
> I with the more extreme 'monster' view. I fall somewhere between
> them, not
> exactly halfway, but somewhere in between. (I grow weary of
> explaining this,
> I really do. That I'm a member of the Society really should be a
> clue that
> I'm not the enemy.) If someone, from either of those extremes makes a
> statement as if it were fact, without anything to back it up, then
> it should
> be questioned.

I agree entirely: this is pretty much my own position. As I said on
the Guardian, I think Richard needs rescuing as much from some of his
'fans' as from his opponents: romance novels do nothing for any
historical character's dignity. (I have this mental image of him
hiding behind the sofa to get away from them: he can face an army
with impunity, but Mary-Sues are something else...).Pace Carol's
objection to the comment about organised crime families, there is
much to be said for regarding a lot of mediæval power politics in
exactly that light. It was a rough and often dirty business, and
being king wasn't a reward for 'good behaviour' by modern standards.

To her:
> at least medieval history isn't, because so many sources have been
> lost or destroyed and so many of those that remain have an evident
> bias
I would respond that, we manage this fine in a lot of areas of
mediæval history, some much earlier than the 15C. Bias is something
you learn to evaluate, you make the most of the records you have, and
admit where there are gaps. The problem is when people are
deliberately seeking material to fit an agenda or prove their case,
rather than simply taking what's there and being willing to accept
there are holes. I've done a fair bit on the 12C in recent years, and
there are gaps of several years in information on the person I'm
writing about: you just accept it's unknowable, unless something
suddenly turns up.

I'm also conscious of the risk of 'bleed-through' from fiction and
more fictionalised histories, which I regard as extremely dangerous.
Richard is for from being unique in being affected by this. I had an
article published earlier this year which identified this as a
troubling element in Steven Runciman's work. and in William Stubbs'
editorial material in the Rolls Series: preconceptions drawn from
boyhood reading of Walter Scott affecting their characterisations. I
see it even in small matters, such as the claim that Anne Neville
died from TB: this was pure speculation (Kendall, IIRC?). *We simply
don't know.* Kendall is as problematic as Runciman, and for similar
reasons: not only were both writing about 60 years ago, but he shares
Runciman's love of writing novelistic prose, with much the same
tendency to fictionalise/dramatise beyond what the evidence allows.
Both create strong dramatic images, but when you examine them
closely, they are not as solidly based as they appear. You see the
same thing with Hicks. While I originally quite liked his Richard
book, his Anne and Edward V books exposed a desire for sensationalism
for its own sake and the fact he was stretching thin material to
breaking point (neither merits more than a long essay/small
monograph, in terms of material available) and trying to hide this
with increasingly wild flourishes of sensationalism for its own sake,
to pad things out. As the Anne book was part of a series edited by
Alison Weir, I do wonder if her influence has been at work on the
series writers.

best wishes,
Marianne

Marianne...

1. I fear I may be a borderline Mary-Sue......

2. Absolutely agree with your comments on Hicks' book on Anne....spot on...though perhaps you did not go far enough...
Eileen


--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> > I get a sense, from this forum and various facebook groups (but
> > not, I must
> > stress, from everyone in the Society) of 'if you're not with us,
> > you're
> > against us'. I'm not with the more extreme 'saintly' view of
> > Richard, nor am
> > I with the more extreme 'monster' view. I fall somewhere between
> > them, not
> > exactly halfway, but somewhere in between. (I grow weary of
> > explaining this,
> > I really do. That I'm a member of the Society really should be a
> > clue that
> > I'm not the enemy.) If someone, from either of those extremes makes a
> > statement as if it were fact, without anything to back it up, then
> > it should
> > be questioned.
>
> I agree entirely: this is pretty much my own position. As I said on
> the Guardian, I think Richard needs rescuing as much from some of his
> 'fans' as from his opponents: romance novels do nothing for any
> historical character's dignity. (I have this mental image of him
> hiding behind the sofa to get away from them: he can face an army
> with impunity, but Mary-Sues are something else...).Pace Carol's
> objection to the comment about organised crime families, there is
> much to be said for regarding a lot of mediæval power politics in
> exactly that light. It was a rough and often dirty business, and
> being king wasn't a reward for 'good behaviour' by modern standards.
>
> To her:
> > at least medieval history isn't, because so many sources have been
> > lost or destroyed and so many of those that remain have an evident
> > bias
> I would respond that, we manage this fine in a lot of areas of
> mediæval history, some much earlier than the 15C. Bias is something
> you learn to evaluate, you make the most of the records you have, and
> admit where there are gaps. The problem is when people are
> deliberately seeking material to fit an agenda or prove their case,
> rather than simply taking what's there and being willing to accept
> there are holes. I've done a fair bit on the 12C in recent years, and
> there are gaps of several years in information on the person I'm
> writing about: you just accept it's unknowable, unless something
> suddenly turns up.
>
> I'm also conscious of the risk of 'bleed-through' from fiction and
> more fictionalised histories, which I regard as extremely dangerous.
> Richard is for from being unique in being affected by this. I had an
> article published earlier this year which identified this as a
> troubling element in Steven Runciman's work. and in William Stubbs'
> editorial material in the Rolls Series: preconceptions drawn from
> boyhood reading of Walter Scott affecting their characterisations. I
> see it even in small matters, such as the claim that Anne Neville
> died from TB: this was pure speculation (Kendall, IIRC?). *We simply
> don't know.* Kendall is as problematic as Runciman, and for similar
> reasons: not only were both writing about 60 years ago, but he shares
> Runciman's love of writing novelistic prose, with much the same
> tendency to fictionalise/dramatise beyond what the evidence allows.
> Both create strong dramatic images, but when you examine them
> closely, they are not as solidly based as they appear. You see the
> same thing with Hicks. While I originally quite liked his Richard
> book, his Anne and Edward V books exposed a desire for sensationalism
> for its own sake and the fact he was stretching thin material to
> breaking point (neither merits more than a long essay/small
> monograph, in terms of material available) and trying to hide this
> with increasingly wild flourishes of sensationalism for its own sake,
> to pad things out. As the Anne book was part of a series edited by
> Alison Weir, I do wonder if her influence has been at work on the
> series writers.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>

Marianne, I agree largely with your assessment of historical fiction.
Ricardian fiction in particular can be a bit over the top. He seems to have
become a romantic hero of the sort that gets wish fulfilment books written
in his name. And wish fulfilment books (unless extremely well disguised)
always have a Mary Sue as female protagonist. Richard is such a milksop in
many of these books. I really can't reconcile that soppy romantic hero with
a man who rode to war, orchestrated the deposition of his nephews (whether
justified or not) and executed men without trial. But there is some good,
well written, well researched fiction out there, with not a Mary Sue in
sight. Sadly, some of the more energetic defenders of Richard I meet on
facebook have only ever met him in fiction. I know it's where a lot of
people start, it's where I started (I adored Hawley Jarman's books when I
was a teenager and will thank her to my dying day for the earl of Warwick)
but I've thoroughly enjoyed moving on.

Hicks' Anne Nevill book is so very sad. I can't think why he wrote it the
way he did, maybe it was Weir's influence, who knows. If he cut out the
nonsense, he'd have a half decent paper on her. As it is, the nonsense does
tend to taint the whole of it. His Warwick and Clarence books are both
excellent. I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having
had my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. I bought it
pre-Amazon, when I lived a long way away from anywhere and grabbed every
book on the subject I could find. Even (and I keep it only as an object
lesson) Alison Weir.

Karen

I thought your message thoughtful.

In an interview, someone said that we can't predict the future and we can't predict the past, in the sense, I think, that the past is imaginative as we don't have all the facts, no more than we do for the future. Maybe we are creatures of fiction.

We can only get impressions of Richard III. If the remains in Leicester turn out to be his mortal remains, I never imagined an arrow in the back and blows to his forehead and back of his neck; who could know?

I showed a grandson the Society of Antiquaries portrait of Richard and he said he looks `creepy.' So, now we know! Or do we?


--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marianne, I agree largely with your assessment of historical fiction.
> Ricardian fiction in particular can be a bit over the top. He seems to have
> become a romantic hero of the sort that gets wish fulfilment books written
> in his name. And wish fulfilment books (unless extremely well disguised)
> always have a Mary Sue as female protagonist. Richard is such a milksop in
> many of these books. I really can't reconcile that soppy romantic hero with
> a man who rode to war, orchestrated the deposition of his nephews (whether
> justified or not) and executed men without trial. But there is some good,
> well written, well researched fiction out there, with not a Mary Sue in
> sight. Sadly, some of the more energetic defenders of Richard I meet on
> facebook have only ever met him in fiction. I know it's where a lot of
> people start, it's where I started (I adored Hawley Jarman's books when I
> was a teenager and will thank her to my dying day for the earl of Warwick)
> but I've thoroughly enjoyed moving on.
>
> Hicks' Anne Nevill book is so very sad. I can't think why he wrote it the
> way he did, maybe it was Weir's influence, who knows. If he cut out the
> nonsense, he'd have a half decent paper on her. As it is, the nonsense does
> tend to taint the whole of it. His Warwick and Clarence books are both
> excellent. I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having
> had my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. I bought it
> pre-Amazon, when I lived a long way away from anywhere and grabbed every
> book on the subject I could find. Even (and I keep it only as an object
> lesson) Alison Weir.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dr M M Gilchrist wrote:
<snip> Pace Carol's objection to the comment about organised crime families, there is much to be said for regarding a lot of mediæval power politics in exactly that light. It was a rough and often dirty business, and being king wasn't a reward for 'good behaviour' by modern standards.

Carol earlier:
> > at least medieval history isn't, because so many sources have been lost or destroyed and so many of those that remain have an evident bias

Dr MM Gilchrist:
> I would respond that, we manage this fine in a lot of areas of mediæval history, some much earlier than the 15C. Bias is something you learn to evaluate, you make the most of the records you have, and admit where there are gaps.

Carol responds:
Ideally, yes. Of course, that's what historians ought to do and some actually attempt it. For example, that's what Annette is trying to do in "The Maligned King" (and succeeding remarkably well), as is John Ashdown-Hill. Audrey Williamson is another example. But too many others still retain their biases--Yorkist, Lancastrian, Tudor, or specifically pro- or anti-Richard, in writing about Richard. Either they try to be objective and fail (like Hicks, Baldwin, and to some extent Kendall on the other side) or they openly retain and flaunt their biases (Desmond Seward is probably the worst).

Dr G (hope you don't mind my abbreviating your name!):

> The problem is when people are deliberately seeking material to fit an agenda or prove their case, rather than simply taking what's there and being willing to accept there are holes.

Carol responds:
Exactly. And that's what happens with Richard, who tends to draw fanatics from either side--thanks primarily to Shakespeare.

Dr. G:
> Richard is for from being unique in being affected by this.

Carol responds:

Yes and no. Certainly, other people, including those from other eras and other walks of life, can be affected by biographers who write to fit an agenda (and others who unwittingly use them as source material). I wrote my 600-plus-page doctoral dissertation, "Hogg's 'Life of Shelley: A Pseudo-Biography," to demonstrate the personal agenda of Percy Bysshe Shelley's so-called friend, Thomas Jefferson Hogg, who actually (provably) altered Shelley's letters, to show that the rest of his "Life of Shelley" was just as distorted as the letters, to explore his agenda, and to show the harmful effects of these distortions on Shelley biography and (literary) criticism.

But Richard *is* unique in having been depicted as a "foul lump of deformity," a monster born (two years in his mother's womb!) and in being better known to the public as a hunchbacked stage figure murdering his way to the throne than as a historical king. Look at the comments to any of the news stories about the dig and you'll find quotations from Shakespeare and people taking what ought to be obviously a caricature at face value as a real, historical person.

Dr G:

<snip> Kendall is as problematic as Runciman, and for similar reasons: not only were both writing about 60 years ago, but he shares> Runciman's love of writing novelistic prose, with much the same tendency to fictionalise/dramatise beyond what the evidence allows. Both create strong dramatic images, but when you examine them closely, they are not as solidly based as they appear. You see the same thing with Hicks. While I originally quite liked his Richard book, his Anne and Edward V books exposed a desire for sensationalism for its own sake and the fact he was stretching thin material to breaking point (neither merits more than a long essay/small monograph, in terms of material available) and trying to hide this with increasingly wild flourishes of sensationalism for its own sake, to pad things out. As the Anne book was part of a series edited by Alison Weir, I do wonder if her influence has been at work on the series writers.

Carol responds:

Exactly. Where is the objectivity, the assessment of the documents, the lack of agenda? I love Kendall because he makes history colorful and turns his historical personae into living people--his book would be an ideal introduction to medieval history for young people--but you're right. He does speculate, and his writing is fictionalized. We need a new biography of Richard that avoids speculating about his motives and simply presents the facts as we know them and the documents (in modern English in the text and the original spelling in the appendix, perhaps) and that points what we *don't* know. I think that Kendall, for all his faults, was wise to put the matter of the so-called Princes in the Tower in an appendix so that he could focus on Richard's acts as king.

At the moment, the chief danger Ricardians face is probably not from would-be historians like David Baldwin as from the popular novelists like Philippa Gregory who pass on the views and inventions of the Tudor propagandists (and whatever More was), even down to the withered arm.

Carol

You are doing yourself a disfavour not reading Kendall, Karen. Well researched and beautifully written. One of the best, and a big influence on many people, myself included.
Paul

On 22 Sep 2012, at 14:21, Karen Clark wrote:

> Marianne, I agree largely with your assessment of historical fiction.
> Ricardian fiction in particular can be a bit over the top. He seems to have
> become a romantic hero of the sort that gets wish fulfilment books written
> in his name. And wish fulfilment books (unless extremely well disguised)
> always have a Mary Sue as female protagonist. Richard is such a milksop in
> many of these books. I really can't reconcile that soppy romantic hero with
> a man who rode to war, orchestrated the deposition of his nephews (whether
> justified or not) and executed men without trial. But there is some good,
> well written, well researched fiction out there, with not a Mary Sue in
> sight. Sadly, some of the more energetic defenders of Richard I meet on
> facebook have only ever met him in fiction. I know it's where a lot of
> people start, it's where I started (I adored Hawley Jarman's books when I
> was a teenager and will thank her to my dying day for the earl of Warwick)
> but I've thoroughly enjoyed moving on.
>
> Hicks' Anne Nevill book is so very sad. I can't think why he wrote it the
> way he did, maybe it was Weir's influence, who knows. If he cut out the
> nonsense, he'd have a half decent paper on her. As it is, the nonsense does
> tend to taint the whole of it. His Warwick and Clarence books are both
> excellent. I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having
> had my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. I bought it
> pre-Amazon, when I lived a long way away from anywhere and grabbed every
> book on the subject I could find. Even (and I keep it only as an object
> lesson) Alison Weir.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

The arrow was not in his back but was simply found lying in the same place as the human remains.
Paul

On 22 Sep 2012, at 15:19, HI wrote:

> I thought your message thoughtful.
>
> In an interview, someone said that we can't predict the future and we can't predict the past, in the sense, I think, that the past is imaginative as we don't have all the facts, no more than we do for the future. Maybe we are creatures of fiction.
>
> We can only get impressions of Richard III. If the remains in Leicester turn out to be his mortal remains, I never imagined an arrow in the back and blows to his forehead and back of his neck; who could know?
>
> I showed a grandson the Society of Antiquaries portrait of Richard and he said he looks `creepy.' So, now we know! Or do we?
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>>
>> Marianne, I agree largely with your assessment of historical fiction.
>> Ricardian fiction in particular can be a bit over the top. He seems to have
>> become a romantic hero of the sort that gets wish fulfilment books written
>> in his name. And wish fulfilment books (unless extremely well disguised)
>> always have a Mary Sue as female protagonist. Richard is such a milksop in
>> many of these books. I really can't reconcile that soppy romantic hero with
>> a man who rode to war, orchestrated the deposition of his nephews (whether
>> justified or not) and executed men without trial. But there is some good,
>> well written, well researched fiction out there, with not a Mary Sue in
>> sight. Sadly, some of the more energetic defenders of Richard I meet on
>> facebook have only ever met him in fiction. I know it's where a lot of
>> people start, it's where I started (I adored Hawley Jarman's books when I
>> was a teenager and will thank her to my dying day for the earl of Warwick)
>> but I've thoroughly enjoyed moving on.
>>
>> Hicks' Anne Nevill book is so very sad. I can't think why he wrote it the
>> way he did, maybe it was Weir's influence, who knows. If he cut out the
>> nonsense, he'd have a half decent paper on her. As it is, the nonsense does
>> tend to taint the whole of it. His Warwick and Clarence books are both
>> excellent. I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having
>> had my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. I bought it
>> pre-Amazon, when I lived a long way away from anywhere and grabbed every
>> book on the subject I could find. Even (and I keep it only as an object
>> lesson) Alison Weir.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:01:50 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: But what happens to these
latest bones?






You are doing yourself a disfavour not reading Kendall, Karen. Well
researched and beautifully written. One of the best, and a big influence on
many people, myself included.
Paul


Paul, until I read both Hicks and Pollard on Warwick, I didn't realise how
bad Kendall's Warwick book was. I respect your view on this, but I'm not
sure I'm willing to take the chance with his Richard.

Karen

Karen Clark wrote:
<snip> I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having had my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. <snip>

Carol responds:

Kendall's Richard III book has its merits (unlike his Warwick, which was not particularly memorable as I recall). If you've read Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour," you have some idea of Kendall's Richard. She seems to have been influenced by him.

To give a tiny example of his style and method, he starts a chapter on George of Clarence with "It is hard to be the brother of a king" (which sets us up with a bit of sympathy for a generally unsympathetic character--er, person) and follows with a contrasting chapter on Richard which also begins "It is hard to be the brother of a king" (which achieves the same effect even though he has already exposed Clarence as the ambitious, wavering weakling he really was. (Funny how all sources agree on him. Except the butt of malmsey, of course.)

You can find snippets of Kendall's book on Google Books without spending a penny. You probably won't like him, but it can't hurt to taste a sample of his wares.

Carol

Thanks, Carol. I'll check it out.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:29:29 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: But what happens to these latest
bones?






Karen Clark wrote:
<snip> I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having had
my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. <snip>

Carol responds:

Kendall's Richard III book has its merits (unlike his Warwick, which was not
particularly memorable as I recall). If you've read Sharon Kay Penman's "The
Sunne in Splendour," you have some idea of Kendall's Richard. She seems to
have been influenced by him.

To give a tiny example of his style and method, he starts a chapter on
George of Clarence with "It is hard to be the brother of a king" (which sets
us up with a bit of sympathy for a generally unsympathetic character--er,
person) and follows with a contrasting chapter on Richard which also begins
"It is hard to be the brother of a king" (which achieves the same effect
even though he has already exposed Clarence as the ambitious, wavering
weakling he really was. (Funny how all sources agree on him. Except the butt
of malmsey, of course.)

You can find snippets of Kendall's book on Google Books without spending a
penny. You probably won't like him, but it can't hurt to taste a sample of
his wares.

Carol

Maybe you could get a cheap 2nd hand copy from Amazon on somewhere similar. It is worth a read...and for many years Kendall's Richard lll was my bible as that was basically all that was around for a long while.

A couple of days ago while flitting through my copy to check something or other I was taken aback because, not quoting exactly here but the gist of it was, that Kendall was thinking on lines of that Prince Edward had a disease of the jaw because this was present in the jaw of one set of the bones..the Blasted Urn bones....I was Duh! But I havent had the time to re-read his chapter covering this....

But all in all a good book....Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip> I haven't read Kendall's Richard III and don't intend to, having had my fingers (and wallet) burned by his Warwick book. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Kendall's Richard III book has its merits (unlike his Warwick, which was not particularly memorable as I recall). If you've read Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour," you have some idea of Kendall's Richard. She seems to have been influenced by him.
>
> To give a tiny example of his style and method, he starts a chapter on George of Clarence with "It is hard to be the brother of a king" (which sets us up with a bit of sympathy for a generally unsympathetic character--er, person) and follows with a contrasting chapter on Richard which also begins "It is hard to be the brother of a king" (which achieves the same effect even though he has already exposed Clarence as the ambitious, wavering weakling he really was. (Funny how all sources agree on him. Except the butt of malmsey, of course.)
>
> You can find snippets of Kendall's book on Google Books without spending a penny. You probably won't like him, but it can't hurt to taste a sample of his wares.
>
> Carol
>

> Hicks' Anne Nevill book is so very sad. I can't think why he wrote it the
> way he did, maybe it was Weir's influence, who knows.

I ran into someone online with rabidly trad views, who claimed to be a friend of Weir and Seward. His screen-name was "Vulture". Make of that what you will...

Jonathan

Wasn't he one of those commenting on piece in the Spectator - rabid indeed!



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 0:57
Subject: Re: Re: But what happens to these latest bones?


 
> Hicks' Anne Nevill book is so very sad. I can't think why he wrote it the
> way he did, maybe it was Weir's influence, who knows.

I ran into someone online with rabidly trad views, who claimed to be a friend of Weir and Seward. His screen-name was "Vulture". Make of that what you will...

Jonathan