Sheriff Hutton tomb?

Re the absence of young Edwards body&.can someone detail why we assume Richard`s son Edward is not in Sheriff Hutton, and why, previously it was thought he was? Who is in that little tomb with the child`s effigy, and how can Church records be so lax, to not have details of that child`s identity? It is sad, that Richard, his son and wife, were for so long&lost! Carol D.

Caro....There is noone in the Sheriff Hutton tomb...It is a cenotaph and empty. It has also been moved from its original place. Going by the costume and hairstyle..it is about 60-80 years before Edward of Middleham's time. But it is thought that it may be a Neville child.

Why can church records be so lax? Yes it is amazing..well to me...that the burial place of Edward has been lost. Whether they have been lost through carelessness or accident I know not. But what a tragedy. How lovely if this little Royal family could all be reunited on earth as they are in Heaven....Eileen

--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re the absence of young Edwards body….can someone detail why we assume Richard`s son Edward is not in Sheriff Hutton, and why, previously it was thought he was? Who is in that little tomb with the child`s effigy, and how can Church records be so lax, to not have details of that child`s identity? It is sad, that Richard, his son and wife, were for so long…lost! Carol D.
>

Church records from the 15th century suffered in the 16th century Reformation, and again in the 17th century Civil War; on top of which the materials on which written records were kept were susceptible to damp, rodents etc. The requirement to keep parish records only began in Henry VIII's time following the Reformation anyway; before that any records kept would have been down to the individual parish officials.

Fifteenth-century stone inscriptions would also have suffered at the Reformation and during the Protectorate when much that was regarded as decorative by the Puritans was removed from churches and destroyed.

Richard G

--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re the absence of young Edwards body….can someone detail why we assume Richard`s son Edward is not in Sheriff Hutton, and why, previously it was thought he was? Who is in that little tomb with the child`s effigy, and how can Church records be so lax, to not have details of that child`s identity? It is sad, that Richard, his son and wife, were for so long…lost! Carol D.
>

Yes....and then later, terrible fires like The Great Fire of London, Warwick had one which practically destroyed most of old Warwick. This must have been commonplace with the style of building etc., And then of course the Blitz...which destroyed so much. I suppose you could say it is fortunate we have anything left at all....Eileen

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Church records from the 15th century suffered in the 16th century Reformation, and again in the 17th century Civil War; on top of which the materials on which written records were kept were susceptible to damp, rodents etc. The requirement to keep parish records only began in Henry VIII's time following the Reformation anyway; before that any records kept would have been down to the individual parish officials.
>
> Fifteenth-century stone inscriptions would also have suffered at the Reformation and during the Protectorate when much that was regarded as decorative by the Puritans was removed from churches and destroyed.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> >
> > Re the absence of young Edwards body….can someone detail why we assume Richard`s son Edward is not in Sheriff Hutton, and why, previously it was thought he was? Who is in that little tomb with the child`s effigy, and how can Church records be so lax, to not have details of that child`s identity? It is sad, that Richard, his son and wife, were for so long…lost! Carol D.
> >
>