Geoffrey of Monmouth
Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-04-30 17:59:48
The other story I mentioned.
Well, checking I see it is not a wicked uncle but a wicked
nephew/cousin. Still, the parallel is strong.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's (d.1155) History of the King's of Britain was
held in the 15th century to be the last word on the subject. Everybody
who was anybody would have read it, and extracted all the juice they
could from the section known as 'The Prophecies of Merlin'. A lot are
about the Boar. Jonathan Hughes discusses in his latest book.
However, further on in the History comes the following:
"Constantine's nephew succeeded him, a young man of extraordinary
bravery called Aurelius Conanus. He ruled over the whole island and
would indeed have been worthy of such a crown if he had not taken such
delight in civil war. He gained the kingship only by attacking his own
uncle (who ought to have reigned after Constantine), throwing him into
prison and killing his two sons. Aurelius Conanus died in the third year
of his reign." (from Penguin edition, translated by Lewis Thorpe)
Thinks: was it by chance that Henry Tudor made his bid in the 3rd year
of Richard's reign?
Thinks: Why would Richard, knowing these stories, put his head in the
noose by deliberately tapping in to these dastardly and doomed
archetypes by killing, or attempting to kill, the Princes? Is not this
the very act he would have sensibly avoided, so as to be seen as the
Boar of Commerce of the Prophecies, whose "breast will be as food to the
hungry and [whose] tongue will assuage the thirst of those who are dry",
rather than an Aurelius Conanus/ Godard / Godrich type?
It would, however, have been in the interests of those who wanted
Richard out (ie Buckingham & Tudor's supporters) for him to be seen in
just that light. Not only did Tudor & his alchemists have the practical
problem of needing a Yorkist heiress for his 'chemical wedding' (from
which Arthur was to be reborn), but to carry people with them they
needed to make Richard look the part of the familiar usurper and
child-murderer deserving of, and doomed to, and early death. Buckingham,
of course, could have tried persuading Richard to kill the Princes
himself as being the easiest way to achieve this; whether or not he
would have been successful, however.....
In this regard, Hughes notes a manuscript a genealogy of notes about
English kings at the end of a 15th century collection of alchemical
treatises, which says that Richard was a diabolic king with an
insatiable appetite for power, and says that not only the executions of
Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but also the murder of the Princes, were
carried out on the counsel of the Duke of Buckingham (who by the way had
his own alchemist, Thomas Nandike).
Any thoughts, anyone?
Marie
Well, checking I see it is not a wicked uncle but a wicked
nephew/cousin. Still, the parallel is strong.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's (d.1155) History of the King's of Britain was
held in the 15th century to be the last word on the subject. Everybody
who was anybody would have read it, and extracted all the juice they
could from the section known as 'The Prophecies of Merlin'. A lot are
about the Boar. Jonathan Hughes discusses in his latest book.
However, further on in the History comes the following:
"Constantine's nephew succeeded him, a young man of extraordinary
bravery called Aurelius Conanus. He ruled over the whole island and
would indeed have been worthy of such a crown if he had not taken such
delight in civil war. He gained the kingship only by attacking his own
uncle (who ought to have reigned after Constantine), throwing him into
prison and killing his two sons. Aurelius Conanus died in the third year
of his reign." (from Penguin edition, translated by Lewis Thorpe)
Thinks: was it by chance that Henry Tudor made his bid in the 3rd year
of Richard's reign?
Thinks: Why would Richard, knowing these stories, put his head in the
noose by deliberately tapping in to these dastardly and doomed
archetypes by killing, or attempting to kill, the Princes? Is not this
the very act he would have sensibly avoided, so as to be seen as the
Boar of Commerce of the Prophecies, whose "breast will be as food to the
hungry and [whose] tongue will assuage the thirst of those who are dry",
rather than an Aurelius Conanus/ Godard / Godrich type?
It would, however, have been in the interests of those who wanted
Richard out (ie Buckingham & Tudor's supporters) for him to be seen in
just that light. Not only did Tudor & his alchemists have the practical
problem of needing a Yorkist heiress for his 'chemical wedding' (from
which Arthur was to be reborn), but to carry people with them they
needed to make Richard look the part of the familiar usurper and
child-murderer deserving of, and doomed to, and early death. Buckingham,
of course, could have tried persuading Richard to kill the Princes
himself as being the easiest way to achieve this; whether or not he
would have been successful, however.....
In this regard, Hughes notes a manuscript a genealogy of notes about
English kings at the end of a 15th century collection of alchemical
treatises, which says that Richard was a diabolic king with an
insatiable appetite for power, and says that not only the executions of
Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but also the murder of the Princes, were
carried out on the counsel of the Duke of Buckingham (who by the way had
his own alchemist, Thomas Nandike).
Any thoughts, anyone?
Marie
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-01 00:54:34
Hello Marie!
You asked: Any thoughts, anyone?
***
After I learned that Buckinghamýs family was
Lancastrian, I found myself thinking: Maybe
Buckingham never actually supported the Yorkists,
although he did whatever was necessary to survive and
get ahead. Edward IV never gave Buckingham much
power. Buckingham is described as marginal, I
believe.
This leads me to ask whether Buckinghamýs apparent
enthusiastic support of Richard was an *act.*
Perhaps Buckingham (conspiring with Bishop Morton
(alchemist), Margaret Beaufort, and Henry Tudor???)
intended to use Richard as a tool to clear Edward IVýs
sons out of the Lancastriansý path to the throne.
I read somewhere that Buckingham *asked Richard* for
custody of Bishop Morton, after Mortonýs arrest. It
was suggested that while Morton was in Buckinghamýs
custody, he persuaded Buckingham to join the rebellion
against Richard.
I have a notion that Buckingham needed no persuading.
I have a notion that he was conspiring all along with
Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor. *That is why he
asked Richard* for custody of Morton. For now,
thatýs what I think.
***
You wrote: ý... to carry people with them they needed
to make Richard look the part of the familiar usurper
and child-murderer deserving of, and doomed to, an
early death. Buckingham, of course, could have tried
persuading Richard to kill the Princes himself as
being the easiest way to achieve this; whether or not
he would have been successful, however ...
***
Your suggestion agrees with my notions. Buckingham
(in cahoots with Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor?)
wanted to get Richard to do their dirty work. Then
they could blacken Richardýs reputation, remove him
from the throne, and look like heroes.
My notion is that Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor
were using Buckingham. Maybe they intended to reward
him if their plan worked. Or maybe not. Perhaps
Buckinghamýs support for the rebellion of 1483
disappeared because Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor
wanted it to disappear. Perhaps they never intended
for Buckingham to share their victory. Or maybe
something that happened between July and October 1483
made them decide theyýd be better off fighting Richard
without Buckingham. And so they left him exposed to
Richard and his supportersý retaliation.
If Buckingham tried and failed to persuade Richard to
kill his nephews, Richard might have decided to
smuggle his nephews out of the Tower *without
Buckinghamýs knowledge*.
Hereýs where my notions connect with Audrey
Williamsonýs and Isolde Wigramýs theories. Richard
may have entrusted his nephews to Tyrell, who moved
them safely to Gipping Hall, where they lived with
their mother, according to the Tyrell family story.
When Richard got news of Henry Tudorýs invasion, he
sent them out of the country.
***
You wrote: Hughes notes a manuscript, a genealogy of
notes about English kings at the end of a 15th century
collection of alchemical treatises, which says that
Richard was a diabolic king with an insatiable
appetite for power, and says that not only the
executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but also the
murder of the Princes, were carried out on the counsel
of the Duke of Buckingham (who by the way had his own
alchemist, Thomas Nandike)
***
Is this another example of fitting Richard into a
pre-existing type, like King Herod? Does the
alchemical tradition have a spectrum of kings from
saintly to diabolical?
***
You wrote: Not only did Tudor & his alchemists have
the practical problem of needing a Yorkist heiress for
his ýchemical weddingý (from which Arthur was to be
reborn) ...
***
How did contemporaries interpret the death of Henry
VIIýs son, Arthur? Was it Godýs punishment for
something Arthur had done? Something Henry VII had
done? Or was there a different explanation?
It seems that after claiming to be Godýs chosen
rescuer of England from ýa diabolical king with an
insatiable appetite for power,ý Henry VII would have
some explaining to do.
How did Henry VII and his supporters explain their
insatiable appetite for the money they raked in with
Mortonýs Fork? <G>
Those are my thoughts right now.
Anyone else?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You asked: Any thoughts, anyone?
***
After I learned that Buckinghamýs family was
Lancastrian, I found myself thinking: Maybe
Buckingham never actually supported the Yorkists,
although he did whatever was necessary to survive and
get ahead. Edward IV never gave Buckingham much
power. Buckingham is described as marginal, I
believe.
This leads me to ask whether Buckinghamýs apparent
enthusiastic support of Richard was an *act.*
Perhaps Buckingham (conspiring with Bishop Morton
(alchemist), Margaret Beaufort, and Henry Tudor???)
intended to use Richard as a tool to clear Edward IVýs
sons out of the Lancastriansý path to the throne.
I read somewhere that Buckingham *asked Richard* for
custody of Bishop Morton, after Mortonýs arrest. It
was suggested that while Morton was in Buckinghamýs
custody, he persuaded Buckingham to join the rebellion
against Richard.
I have a notion that Buckingham needed no persuading.
I have a notion that he was conspiring all along with
Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor. *That is why he
asked Richard* for custody of Morton. For now,
thatýs what I think.
***
You wrote: ý... to carry people with them they needed
to make Richard look the part of the familiar usurper
and child-murderer deserving of, and doomed to, an
early death. Buckingham, of course, could have tried
persuading Richard to kill the Princes himself as
being the easiest way to achieve this; whether or not
he would have been successful, however ...
***
Your suggestion agrees with my notions. Buckingham
(in cahoots with Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor?)
wanted to get Richard to do their dirty work. Then
they could blacken Richardýs reputation, remove him
from the throne, and look like heroes.
My notion is that Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor
were using Buckingham. Maybe they intended to reward
him if their plan worked. Or maybe not. Perhaps
Buckinghamýs support for the rebellion of 1483
disappeared because Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor
wanted it to disappear. Perhaps they never intended
for Buckingham to share their victory. Or maybe
something that happened between July and October 1483
made them decide theyýd be better off fighting Richard
without Buckingham. And so they left him exposed to
Richard and his supportersý retaliation.
If Buckingham tried and failed to persuade Richard to
kill his nephews, Richard might have decided to
smuggle his nephews out of the Tower *without
Buckinghamýs knowledge*.
Hereýs where my notions connect with Audrey
Williamsonýs and Isolde Wigramýs theories. Richard
may have entrusted his nephews to Tyrell, who moved
them safely to Gipping Hall, where they lived with
their mother, according to the Tyrell family story.
When Richard got news of Henry Tudorýs invasion, he
sent them out of the country.
***
You wrote: Hughes notes a manuscript, a genealogy of
notes about English kings at the end of a 15th century
collection of alchemical treatises, which says that
Richard was a diabolic king with an insatiable
appetite for power, and says that not only the
executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but also the
murder of the Princes, were carried out on the counsel
of the Duke of Buckingham (who by the way had his own
alchemist, Thomas Nandike)
***
Is this another example of fitting Richard into a
pre-existing type, like King Herod? Does the
alchemical tradition have a spectrum of kings from
saintly to diabolical?
***
You wrote: Not only did Tudor & his alchemists have
the practical problem of needing a Yorkist heiress for
his ýchemical weddingý (from which Arthur was to be
reborn) ...
***
How did contemporaries interpret the death of Henry
VIIýs son, Arthur? Was it Godýs punishment for
something Arthur had done? Something Henry VII had
done? Or was there a different explanation?
It seems that after claiming to be Godýs chosen
rescuer of England from ýa diabolical king with an
insatiable appetite for power,ý Henry VII would have
some explaining to do.
How did Henry VII and his supporters explain their
insatiable appetite for the money they raked in with
Mortonýs Fork? <G>
Those are my thoughts right now.
Anyone else?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-01 01:29:16
Hello Marie!
I hear echoes of Geoffrey's comments about Aurelius
Conanus in Robert Fabyan's comments about Richard III.
Geoffry wrote: "He ruled over the whole island and
would indeed have been worthy of sucah a crown if he
had not taken such delight in civil war. He gained
the kingship only by attacking his own uncle (who
ought to have reigned after Constantine) throwing him
into prison and killing his two sons."
Fabyan wrote: "Had he suffered the children to have
prospered he would have been lauded over all; whereas
now his fame is darked and dishonoured as far as he is
known." (Great Chronicle of London, continuation,
quoted in "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower,"
p. 230)
Would Fabyan have been deliberately referring to
Geoffrey's comments in his own? Is Fabyan likely to
have been thinking of Aurelius Conanus as he wrote
about Richard III? Would his readers have recognized
the comparison as easily as a comparison to King
Herod?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
I hear echoes of Geoffrey's comments about Aurelius
Conanus in Robert Fabyan's comments about Richard III.
Geoffry wrote: "He ruled over the whole island and
would indeed have been worthy of sucah a crown if he
had not taken such delight in civil war. He gained
the kingship only by attacking his own uncle (who
ought to have reigned after Constantine) throwing him
into prison and killing his two sons."
Fabyan wrote: "Had he suffered the children to have
prospered he would have been lauded over all; whereas
now his fame is darked and dishonoured as far as he is
known." (Great Chronicle of London, continuation,
quoted in "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower,"
p. 230)
Would Fabyan have been deliberately referring to
Geoffrey's comments in his own? Is Fabyan likely to
have been thinking of Aurelius Conanus as he wrote
about Richard III? Would his readers have recognized
the comparison as easily as a comparison to King
Herod?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-01 03:33:55
Henry VII certainly had motivatioin.
--- marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
> You asked: Any thoughts, anyone?
>
> ***
>
> After I learned that Buckinghamýs family was
> Lancastrian, I found myself thinking: Maybe
> Buckingham never actually supported the Yorkists,
> although he did whatever was necessary to survive
> and
> get ahead. Edward IV never gave Buckingham much
> power. Buckingham is described as marginal, I
> believe.
>
> This leads me to ask whether Buckinghamýs apparent
> enthusiastic support of Richard was an *act.*
>
> Perhaps Buckingham (conspiring with Bishop Morton
> (alchemist), Margaret Beaufort, and Henry Tudor???)
> intended to use Richard as a tool to clear Edward
> IVýs
> sons out of the Lancastriansý path to the throne.
>
> I read somewhere that Buckingham *asked Richard* for
> custody of Bishop Morton, after Mortonýs arrest. It
> was suggested that while Morton was in Buckinghamýs
> custody, he persuaded Buckingham to join the
> rebellion
> against Richard.
>
> I have a notion that Buckingham needed no
> persuading.
> I have a notion that he was conspiring all along
> with
> Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor. *That is why he
> asked Richard* for custody of Morton. For now,
> thatýs what I think.
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: ý... to carry people with them they
> needed
> to make Richard look the part of the familiar
> usurper
> and child-murderer deserving of, and doomed to, an
> early death. Buckingham, of course, could have
> tried
> persuading Richard to kill the Princes himself as
> being the easiest way to achieve this; whether or
> not
> he would have been successful, however ...
>
> ***
>
> Your suggestion agrees with my notions. Buckingham
> (in cahoots with Morton, Beaufort, and Henry
> Tudor?)
> wanted to get Richard to do their dirty work. Then
> they could blacken Richardýs reputation, remove him
> from the throne, and look like heroes.
>
> My notion is that Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor
> were using Buckingham. Maybe they intended to
> reward
> him if their plan worked. Or maybe not. Perhaps
> Buckinghamýs support for the rebellion of 1483
> disappeared because Morton, Beaufort, and Henry
> Tudor
> wanted it to disappear. Perhaps they never intended
> for Buckingham to share their victory. Or maybe
> something that happened between July and October
> 1483
> made them decide theyýd be better off fighting
> Richard
> without Buckingham. And so they left him exposed
> to
> Richard and his supportersý retaliation.
>
> If Buckingham tried and failed to persuade Richard
> to
> kill his nephews, Richard might have decided to
> smuggle his nephews out of the Tower *without
> Buckinghamýs knowledge*.
>
> Hereýs where my notions connect with Audrey
> Williamsonýs and Isolde Wigramýs theories. Richard
> may have entrusted his nephews to Tyrell, who moved
> them safely to Gipping Hall, where they lived with
> their mother, according to the Tyrell family story.
> When Richard got news of Henry Tudorýs invasion, he
> sent them out of the country.
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: Hughes notes a manuscript, a genealogy
> of
> notes about English kings at the end of a 15th
> century
> collection of alchemical treatises, which says that
> Richard was a diabolic king with an insatiable
> appetite for power, and says that not only the
> executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but also the
> murder of the Princes, were carried out on the
> counsel
> of the Duke of Buckingham (who by the way had his
> own
> alchemist, Thomas Nandike)
>
> ***
>
> Is this another example of fitting Richard into a
> pre-existing type, like King Herod? Does the
> alchemical tradition have a spectrum of kings from
> saintly to diabolical?
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: Not only did Tudor & his alchemists have
> the practical problem of needing a Yorkist heiress
> for
> his ýchemical weddingý (from which Arthur was to be
> reborn) ...
>
> ***
>
> How did contemporaries interpret the death of Henry
> VIIýs son, Arthur? Was it Godýs punishment for
> something Arthur had done? Something Henry VII had
> done? Or was there a different explanation?
>
> It seems that after claiming to be Godýs chosen
> rescuer of England from ýa diabolical king with an
> insatiable appetite for power,ý Henry VII would have
> some explaining to do.
>
> How did Henry VII and his supporters explain their
> insatiable appetite for the money they raked in with
> Mortonýs Fork? <G>
>
> Those are my thoughts right now.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
=====
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley
"The gods too are fond of a joke." - Aristotle
"Criticism is prejudice made plausible." - Henry Louis Mencken
--- marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
> You asked: Any thoughts, anyone?
>
> ***
>
> After I learned that Buckinghamýs family was
> Lancastrian, I found myself thinking: Maybe
> Buckingham never actually supported the Yorkists,
> although he did whatever was necessary to survive
> and
> get ahead. Edward IV never gave Buckingham much
> power. Buckingham is described as marginal, I
> believe.
>
> This leads me to ask whether Buckinghamýs apparent
> enthusiastic support of Richard was an *act.*
>
> Perhaps Buckingham (conspiring with Bishop Morton
> (alchemist), Margaret Beaufort, and Henry Tudor???)
> intended to use Richard as a tool to clear Edward
> IVýs
> sons out of the Lancastriansý path to the throne.
>
> I read somewhere that Buckingham *asked Richard* for
> custody of Bishop Morton, after Mortonýs arrest. It
> was suggested that while Morton was in Buckinghamýs
> custody, he persuaded Buckingham to join the
> rebellion
> against Richard.
>
> I have a notion that Buckingham needed no
> persuading.
> I have a notion that he was conspiring all along
> with
> Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor. *That is why he
> asked Richard* for custody of Morton. For now,
> thatýs what I think.
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: ý... to carry people with them they
> needed
> to make Richard look the part of the familiar
> usurper
> and child-murderer deserving of, and doomed to, an
> early death. Buckingham, of course, could have
> tried
> persuading Richard to kill the Princes himself as
> being the easiest way to achieve this; whether or
> not
> he would have been successful, however ...
>
> ***
>
> Your suggestion agrees with my notions. Buckingham
> (in cahoots with Morton, Beaufort, and Henry
> Tudor?)
> wanted to get Richard to do their dirty work. Then
> they could blacken Richardýs reputation, remove him
> from the throne, and look like heroes.
>
> My notion is that Morton, Beaufort, and Henry Tudor
> were using Buckingham. Maybe they intended to
> reward
> him if their plan worked. Or maybe not. Perhaps
> Buckinghamýs support for the rebellion of 1483
> disappeared because Morton, Beaufort, and Henry
> Tudor
> wanted it to disappear. Perhaps they never intended
> for Buckingham to share their victory. Or maybe
> something that happened between July and October
> 1483
> made them decide theyýd be better off fighting
> Richard
> without Buckingham. And so they left him exposed
> to
> Richard and his supportersý retaliation.
>
> If Buckingham tried and failed to persuade Richard
> to
> kill his nephews, Richard might have decided to
> smuggle his nephews out of the Tower *without
> Buckinghamýs knowledge*.
>
> Hereýs where my notions connect with Audrey
> Williamsonýs and Isolde Wigramýs theories. Richard
> may have entrusted his nephews to Tyrell, who moved
> them safely to Gipping Hall, where they lived with
> their mother, according to the Tyrell family story.
> When Richard got news of Henry Tudorýs invasion, he
> sent them out of the country.
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: Hughes notes a manuscript, a genealogy
> of
> notes about English kings at the end of a 15th
> century
> collection of alchemical treatises, which says that
> Richard was a diabolic king with an insatiable
> appetite for power, and says that not only the
> executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but also the
> murder of the Princes, were carried out on the
> counsel
> of the Duke of Buckingham (who by the way had his
> own
> alchemist, Thomas Nandike)
>
> ***
>
> Is this another example of fitting Richard into a
> pre-existing type, like King Herod? Does the
> alchemical tradition have a spectrum of kings from
> saintly to diabolical?
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: Not only did Tudor & his alchemists have
> the practical problem of needing a Yorkist heiress
> for
> his ýchemical weddingý (from which Arthur was to be
> reborn) ...
>
> ***
>
> How did contemporaries interpret the death of Henry
> VIIýs son, Arthur? Was it Godýs punishment for
> something Arthur had done? Something Henry VII had
> done? Or was there a different explanation?
>
> It seems that after claiming to be Godýs chosen
> rescuer of England from ýa diabolical king with an
> insatiable appetite for power,ý Henry VII would have
> some explaining to do.
>
> How did Henry VII and his supporters explain their
> insatiable appetite for the money they raked in with
> Mortonýs Fork? <G>
>
> Those are my thoughts right now.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
=====
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley
"The gods too are fond of a joke." - Aristotle
"Criticism is prejudice made plausible." - Henry Louis Mencken
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-02 18:59:41
Hello Victoria!
You wrote: I agree with everything you said basicaly
lol
***
You may have seen Marie's reply by now.
There are plenty of theories. Mine is just one among
many. Right now it works for me. But I'm ready to
change when better evidence appears.
I like my theory because it:
1- relieves Richard of the burden of murduring his
nephews;
2- makes Richard less naive relative to Buckingham.
Perhaps Buckingham didn't deceive Richard quite as
badly as some theories say he did. I'd like that to
be true.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You wrote: I agree with everything you said basicaly
lol
***
You may have seen Marie's reply by now.
There are plenty of theories. Mine is just one among
many. Right now it works for me. But I'm ready to
change when better evidence appears.
I like my theory because it:
1- relieves Richard of the burden of murduring his
nephews;
2- makes Richard less naive relative to Buckingham.
Perhaps Buckingham didn't deceive Richard quite as
badly as some theories say he did. I'd like that to
be true.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-02 19:14:00
Colleen wrote: Henry VII certainly had motivation
***
I've asked myself how much his mother's ambitions
influenced Henry Tudor's motivations.
I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies on
Henry's behalf. Not only did she have to participate
in murdering people, she seems to have been breaking
the rules of inheritance. If my understanding of the
geneologies is correct, both Margaret and her son
belonged to an illigitimate line, making Henry
inelegible for the throne.
If Henry Tudor was inelegible for the throne, Richard
would have little motivation to kill him. As long as
Henry lived peacefully, it seems to me that he wasn't
a threat to Richard. So it seems to me that Henry
wasn't acting in self-defense when he conspired to
take the throne.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
***
I've asked myself how much his mother's ambitions
influenced Henry Tudor's motivations.
I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies on
Henry's behalf. Not only did she have to participate
in murdering people, she seems to have been breaking
the rules of inheritance. If my understanding of the
geneologies is correct, both Margaret and her son
belonged to an illigitimate line, making Henry
inelegible for the throne.
If Henry Tudor was inelegible for the throne, Richard
would have little motivation to kill him. As long as
Henry lived peacefully, it seems to me that he wasn't
a threat to Richard. So it seems to me that Henry
wasn't acting in self-defense when he conspired to
take the throne.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-02 22:35:10
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
> reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies on
> Henry's behalf.
I think the problem here is that we take piety to mean "very religious,
charitable, honest, kind to all" etc in a Mother Teresa or Saint Bernadette
sort of way, which is us looking back with 20th century views on a long gone
period. Let's also not forget how Roman Catholicism then was all about the
power of the church, and sin and redemption and forgiveness, and how one
could buy oneself into Heaven and out of purgatory with confessions and
indulgences. Committ a sin, confess and receive forgiveness from the
church<i.e. a priest> make a donation and the slate is wiped clean.
"Piety" could easily mix with realpolitik, as it did with so many, Margaret
Beaufort especially, and a clear conscience could be kept.
Piety then did not necessarily mean any extravagent show of "holiness",
endless masses, hours spent on one's knees, offerings galore to the saints
etc. If it did Mary Tudor would have been canonised instead of vilified over
the ages, for athat is all she seemed to do, and nobody has ever called her
'pious', only ever Bloody. One minute praying, the next sending men and
women to the flames.
Paul
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
> reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies on
> Henry's behalf.
I think the problem here is that we take piety to mean "very religious,
charitable, honest, kind to all" etc in a Mother Teresa or Saint Bernadette
sort of way, which is us looking back with 20th century views on a long gone
period. Let's also not forget how Roman Catholicism then was all about the
power of the church, and sin and redemption and forgiveness, and how one
could buy oneself into Heaven and out of purgatory with confessions and
indulgences. Committ a sin, confess and receive forgiveness from the
church<i.e. a priest> make a donation and the slate is wiped clean.
"Piety" could easily mix with realpolitik, as it did with so many, Margaret
Beaufort especially, and a clear conscience could be kept.
Piety then did not necessarily mean any extravagent show of "holiness",
endless masses, hours spent on one's knees, offerings galore to the saints
etc. If it did Mary Tudor would have been canonised instead of vilified over
the ages, for athat is all she seemed to do, and nobody has ever called her
'pious', only ever Bloody. One minute praying, the next sending men and
women to the flames.
Paul
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-03 02:40:04
Henry wanted the throne for himself. Why else would
he have rode into battle, knowing full well there was
a possibility that he would not live through it.
(That battle stuff must be a guy thing.)
Certainly his mother may have influenced him, but
Henry VII was known for his shrewdness. I think he
wanted that throne and all it could bring him.
Colleen
--- marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> Colleen wrote: Henry VII certainly had motivation
>
> ***
>
> I've asked myself how much his mother's ambitions
> influenced Henry Tudor's motivations.
>
> I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
> reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies
> on
> Henry's behalf. Not only did she have to
> participate
> in murdering people, she seems to have been breaking
> the rules of inheritance. If my understanding of
> the
> geneologies is correct, both Margaret and her son
> belonged to an illigitimate line, making Henry
> inelegible for the throne.
>
> If Henry Tudor was inelegible for the throne,
> Richard
> would have little motivation to kill him. As long
> as
> Henry lived peacefully, it seems to me that he
> wasn't
> a threat to Richard. So it seems to me that Henry
> wasn't acting in self-defense when he conspired to
> take the throne.
>
> Anyone have thoughts on this?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
=====
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley
"The gods too are fond of a joke." - Aristotle
"Criticism is prejudice made plausible." - Henry Louis Mencken
he have rode into battle, knowing full well there was
a possibility that he would not live through it.
(That battle stuff must be a guy thing.)
Certainly his mother may have influenced him, but
Henry VII was known for his shrewdness. I think he
wanted that throne and all it could bring him.
Colleen
--- marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> Colleen wrote: Henry VII certainly had motivation
>
> ***
>
> I've asked myself how much his mother's ambitions
> influenced Henry Tudor's motivations.
>
> I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
> reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies
> on
> Henry's behalf. Not only did she have to
> participate
> in murdering people, she seems to have been breaking
> the rules of inheritance. If my understanding of
> the
> geneologies is correct, both Margaret and her son
> belonged to an illigitimate line, making Henry
> inelegible for the throne.
>
> If Henry Tudor was inelegible for the throne,
> Richard
> would have little motivation to kill him. As long
> as
> Henry lived peacefully, it seems to me that he
> wasn't
> a threat to Richard. So it seems to me that Henry
> wasn't acting in self-defense when he conspired to
> take the throne.
>
> Anyone have thoughts on this?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
=====
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley
"The gods too are fond of a joke." - Aristotle
"Criticism is prejudice made plausible." - Henry Louis Mencken
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-03 11:07:28
--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: marion davis <phaecilia@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
> >
> > I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
> > reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies on
> > Henry's behalf.
> I think the problem here is that we take piety to mean "very
religious,
> charitable, honest, kind to all" etc in a Mother Teresa or Saint
Bernadette
> sort of way, which is us looking back with 20th century views on a
long gone
> period. Let's also not forget how Roman Catholicism then was all
about the
> power of the church, and sin and redemption and forgiveness, and
how one
> could buy oneself into Heaven and out of purgatory with confessions
and
> indulgences. Committ a sin, confess and receive forgiveness from the
> church<i.e. a priest> make a donation and the slate is wiped clean.
> "Piety" could easily mix with realpolitik, as it did with so many,
Margaret
> Beaufort especially, and a clear conscience could be kept.
> Piety then did not necessarily mean any extravagent show
of "holiness",
> endless masses, hours spent on one's knees, offerings galore to the
saints
> etc. If it did Mary Tudor would have been canonised instead of
vilified over
> the ages, for athat is all she seemed to do, and nobody has ever
called her
> 'pious', only ever Bloody. One minute praying, the next sending men
and
> women to the flames.
> Paul
Paul, I don't know if it was different then, but when I was growing
up it was always stressed by the priests & nuns that even if you
fooled the priest in confession you couldn't fool God. Absolution was
only real if you were genuinely sorry. However, there was always a
class of person about who equated holiness merely with religious
practice. People who condemned 'heretics' kidded themselves it was a
holy act, but I don't think it would have been as easy to explain
away killing the princes in that light. An evil necessary to prevent
greater ones, perhaps. Such as, for Margaret Beaufort, Richard's
getting hold of Henry Tudor and having him put to death?
Incidentally, what access would she have had if she'd wanted to kill
the Princes?
Marie
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: marion davis <phaecilia@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
> >
> > I've asked myself how a woman with Margaret's
> > reputation for piety could justify her conspiracies on
> > Henry's behalf.
> I think the problem here is that we take piety to mean "very
religious,
> charitable, honest, kind to all" etc in a Mother Teresa or Saint
Bernadette
> sort of way, which is us looking back with 20th century views on a
long gone
> period. Let's also not forget how Roman Catholicism then was all
about the
> power of the church, and sin and redemption and forgiveness, and
how one
> could buy oneself into Heaven and out of purgatory with confessions
and
> indulgences. Committ a sin, confess and receive forgiveness from the
> church<i.e. a priest> make a donation and the slate is wiped clean.
> "Piety" could easily mix with realpolitik, as it did with so many,
Margaret
> Beaufort especially, and a clear conscience could be kept.
> Piety then did not necessarily mean any extravagent show
of "holiness",
> endless masses, hours spent on one's knees, offerings galore to the
saints
> etc. If it did Mary Tudor would have been canonised instead of
vilified over
> the ages, for athat is all she seemed to do, and nobody has ever
called her
> 'pious', only ever Bloody. One minute praying, the next sending men
and
> women to the flames.
> Paul
Paul, I don't know if it was different then, but when I was growing
up it was always stressed by the priests & nuns that even if you
fooled the priest in confession you couldn't fool God. Absolution was
only real if you were genuinely sorry. However, there was always a
class of person about who equated holiness merely with religious
practice. People who condemned 'heretics' kidded themselves it was a
holy act, but I don't think it would have been as easy to explain
away killing the princes in that light. An evil necessary to prevent
greater ones, perhaps. Such as, for Margaret Beaufort, Richard's
getting hold of Henry Tudor and having him put to death?
Incidentally, what access would she have had if she'd wanted to kill
the Princes?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-04 12:52:17
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 10:07:27 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> I don't think it would have been as easy to explain
> away killing the princes in that light. An evil necessary to prevent
> greater ones, perhaps. Such as, for Margaret Beaufort, Richard's
> getting hold of Henry Tudor and having him put to death?
> Incidentally, what access would she have had if she'd wanted to kill
> the Princes?
Did I miss someone suggesting Margaret had the bastards done away with?
Geoffrey Richardson's theory apart that is.
I don't rate it myself, If she had been a part of any conspiracy to muder
them Henry would have known and the pretenders would not have caused him so
much anguish and paranoia.
And it is also perfectly possible for someone to confess and mean it, then
go out and do it again the next day amd call it a lapse<g>. The Catholic
church wouldn't have lasted so long without such 'piety'.
A couple of other points from this thread.
Henry Tudor's branch of the line, i.e. the Beauforts were excluded from the
throne when legitamised by Richard II. Now this could have been later
overturned, but never was, so legally he had no rights, hence his claim of
King by conquest alone, and his reluctance to rule by right of his wife of
York, thus the delay in the marriage.
Buckingham I have always thought was after the main chance for himself. His
only problem was he wasn't as clever as he thought he was. I think
Shakespeare's Richard was in fact Buckingham, always thinking about getting
himsefinto a position where he could take the throne himself. After all the
house of York had not been kind to him (as he may have thought) keeping him
from anything but ceremonial duties and the postitions he saw his family as
having the right to. Also they pushed a Woodville bride onto him at a young
age.
What is it some say? my two penny worth!
Paul
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 10:07:27 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> I don't think it would have been as easy to explain
> away killing the princes in that light. An evil necessary to prevent
> greater ones, perhaps. Such as, for Margaret Beaufort, Richard's
> getting hold of Henry Tudor and having him put to death?
> Incidentally, what access would she have had if she'd wanted to kill
> the Princes?
Did I miss someone suggesting Margaret had the bastards done away with?
Geoffrey Richardson's theory apart that is.
I don't rate it myself, If she had been a part of any conspiracy to muder
them Henry would have known and the pretenders would not have caused him so
much anguish and paranoia.
And it is also perfectly possible for someone to confess and mean it, then
go out and do it again the next day amd call it a lapse<g>. The Catholic
church wouldn't have lasted so long without such 'piety'.
A couple of other points from this thread.
Henry Tudor's branch of the line, i.e. the Beauforts were excluded from the
throne when legitamised by Richard II. Now this could have been later
overturned, but never was, so legally he had no rights, hence his claim of
King by conquest alone, and his reluctance to rule by right of his wife of
York, thus the delay in the marriage.
Buckingham I have always thought was after the main chance for himself. His
only problem was he wasn't as clever as he thought he was. I think
Shakespeare's Richard was in fact Buckingham, always thinking about getting
himsefinto a position where he could take the throne himself. After all the
house of York had not been kind to him (as he may have thought) keeping him
from anything but ceremonial duties and the postitions he saw his family as
having the right to. Also they pushed a Woodville bride onto him at a young
age.
What is it some say? my two penny worth!
Paul
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-06 01:00:31
Hello Paul!
You wrote: I think the problem here is that we take
piety to mean "very religious, charitable, honest,
kind to all" etc in a Mother Teresa or Saint
Bernadette sort of way, which is us looking back with
20th century views on a long gone period.
***
Thatýs an accurate description of how I see it.
***
You wrote: Let's also not forget how Roman
Catholicism then was all about the power of the
church, and sin and redemption and forgiveness, and
how one could buy oneself into Heaven and out of
purgatory with confessions and indulgences.
***
Iým still trying to understand the rules as the 15th
century players saw them. Who could get away with
breaking them? Who could break the rules and profit
by it? Who paid a high price for breaking the rules?
***
You wrote: "Piety" could easily mix with realpolitik,
as it did with so many, Margaret Beaufort especially,
and a clear conscience could be kept.
***
So Margaret Beaufort was able to profit because the
rules allowed her to combine piety with realpolitik.
Is that right?
***
You wrote: Piety then did not necessarily mean any
extravagent show of "holiness", endless masses, hours
spent on one's knees, offerings galore to the saints
etc. If it did Mary Tudor would have been canonised
instead of vilified over the ages, for that is all she
seemed to do, and nobody has ever called her 'pious',
only ever Bloody.
***
Did Mary Tudor break 16th century rules? Why didnýt
she get credit for being pious, as Margaret Beaufort
did?
***
You wrote: One minute praying, the next sending men
and women to the flames.
***
Iýve read that other religious leaders did something
similar. Iýve forgotten the details, but I remember
reading that Pope Innocent III, Martin Luther, John
Calvin, and Roger Williams were responsible for many
deaths.
I have trouble seeing any of them as pious. Their
actions seem to contradict their ideals. Thatýs my
bias interfering with understanding earlier times. I
can keep reminding myself of my bias, but Iým doubtful
of ever seeing their worlds through their eyes.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You wrote: I think the problem here is that we take
piety to mean "very religious, charitable, honest,
kind to all" etc in a Mother Teresa or Saint
Bernadette sort of way, which is us looking back with
20th century views on a long gone period.
***
Thatýs an accurate description of how I see it.
***
You wrote: Let's also not forget how Roman
Catholicism then was all about the power of the
church, and sin and redemption and forgiveness, and
how one could buy oneself into Heaven and out of
purgatory with confessions and indulgences.
***
Iým still trying to understand the rules as the 15th
century players saw them. Who could get away with
breaking them? Who could break the rules and profit
by it? Who paid a high price for breaking the rules?
***
You wrote: "Piety" could easily mix with realpolitik,
as it did with so many, Margaret Beaufort especially,
and a clear conscience could be kept.
***
So Margaret Beaufort was able to profit because the
rules allowed her to combine piety with realpolitik.
Is that right?
***
You wrote: Piety then did not necessarily mean any
extravagent show of "holiness", endless masses, hours
spent on one's knees, offerings galore to the saints
etc. If it did Mary Tudor would have been canonised
instead of vilified over the ages, for that is all she
seemed to do, and nobody has ever called her 'pious',
only ever Bloody.
***
Did Mary Tudor break 16th century rules? Why didnýt
she get credit for being pious, as Margaret Beaufort
did?
***
You wrote: One minute praying, the next sending men
and women to the flames.
***
Iýve read that other religious leaders did something
similar. Iýve forgotten the details, but I remember
reading that Pope Innocent III, Martin Luther, John
Calvin, and Roger Williams were responsible for many
deaths.
I have trouble seeing any of them as pious. Their
actions seem to contradict their ideals. Thatýs my
bias interfering with understanding earlier times. I
can keep reminding myself of my bias, but Iým doubtful
of ever seeing their worlds through their eyes.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-06 01:09:35
Hello Marie!
You wrote: People who condemned 'heretics' kidded
themselves it was a holy act, but I don't think it
would have been as easy to explain away killing the
princes in that light. An evil necessary to prevent
greater ones, perhaps. Such as, for Margaret Beaufort,
Richard's getting hold of Henry Tudor and having him
put to death?
***
Didnýt Henry Tudor kill as many Plantagenet heirs as
he could in order to prevent what he considered a
greater evil?
***
You wrote: Incidentally, what access would she have
had if she'd wanted to kill the Princes?
***
My notion is that Margaret Beaufort, Bishop Morton and
Henry Tudor were trying to kill the nephews by remote
control: they were using Buckingham to manipulate
Richard into killing his nephews.
Then they planned to overthrow Richard. Henry VII
gets to look like a hero. His supporters get power
and profits. Richard gets all the blame.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You wrote: People who condemned 'heretics' kidded
themselves it was a holy act, but I don't think it
would have been as easy to explain away killing the
princes in that light. An evil necessary to prevent
greater ones, perhaps. Such as, for Margaret Beaufort,
Richard's getting hold of Henry Tudor and having him
put to death?
***
Didnýt Henry Tudor kill as many Plantagenet heirs as
he could in order to prevent what he considered a
greater evil?
***
You wrote: Incidentally, what access would she have
had if she'd wanted to kill the Princes?
***
My notion is that Margaret Beaufort, Bishop Morton and
Henry Tudor were trying to kill the nephews by remote
control: they were using Buckingham to manipulate
Richard into killing his nephews.
Then they planned to overthrow Richard. Henry VII
gets to look like a hero. His supporters get power
and profits. Richard gets all the blame.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-06 01:45:59
Hello Paul!
You wrote: Tip the bodies into the Thames with all
the rubbish and they are history.
***
If that's what happened, then the bones in the urn in
Westminster Abbey can't belong to Richard's nephews,
can they?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You wrote: Tip the bodies into the Thames with all
the rubbish and they are history.
***
If that's what happened, then the bones in the urn in
Westminster Abbey can't belong to Richard's nephews,
can they?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-06 01:50:37
Hello Victoria and Paul!
Paul wrote: > Only problem with this is of course,
would Buckingham not have bragged about
> it to prisoner Morton back in Brecon?
***
Was Morton really a prisoner? Didn't Buckingham *ask*
Richard for custody of Morton? Could that have been
because they were working together against Richard all
along?
***
Victoria wrote: I have a feeling that if Buckingham
did it, he would have kept silent on it
to make it look like it was Richard's doing
***
I agree.
And I think Morton would have kept quiet about it for
the same reason.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Paul wrote: > Only problem with this is of course,
would Buckingham not have bragged about
> it to prisoner Morton back in Brecon?
***
Was Morton really a prisoner? Didn't Buckingham *ask*
Richard for custody of Morton? Could that have been
because they were working together against Richard all
along?
***
Victoria wrote: I have a feeling that if Buckingham
did it, he would have kept silent on it
to make it look like it was Richard's doing
***
I agree.
And I think Morton would have kept quiet about it for
the same reason.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-06 12:36:47
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> If that's what happened, then the bones in the urn in
> Westminster Abbey can't belong to Richard's nephews,
> can they?
Quite, Marion, and I have never believed they were anyway. So many people
have lived in the Tower over the centuries they could date from any era, and
it is only because they were found under a stair, as More had written, that
people took them for Richard's nephews. Wrong staircase of course, as they
were never living in the White Tower, but that never stopped some people.
Sad for Richard.
Paul
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> If that's what happened, then the bones in the urn in
> Westminster Abbey can't belong to Richard's nephews,
> can they?
Quite, Marion, and I have never believed they were anyway. So many people
have lived in the Tower over the centuries they could date from any era, and
it is only because they were found under a stair, as More had written, that
people took them for Richard's nephews. Wrong staircase of course, as they
were never living in the White Tower, but that never stopped some people.
Sad for Richard.
Paul
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-06 21:29:16
--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> You wrote: So many people
> have lived in the Tower over the centuries they could date from any
era, and
> it is only because they were found under a stair, as More had
written, that
> people took them for Richard's nephews. Wrong staircase of course,
as they
> were never living in the White Tower, but that never stopped some
people.
> Sad for Richard.
> Paul
Yes. Two things strike me about those bones. One is what a silly way
to try to hide the evidence! Okay, so we're not sure whether they
were buried under the staircase or next to it, but if underneath it
would have been a big job - couldn't possibly have passed unnoticed.
If beside, there would be the problem of hiding the recently-dug
spot. It takes weeks for a grave to settle. So perhaps these bodies
had been put there much earlier on. There has been a lot written on
the possibility of foundation sacrifices. Also, I'm sure I've read
that bodies were sometimes buried under staircases. This would be
because, like all boundary points, these were held to exist between
the worlds. So an excellent place for a foundation sacrifice.
Secondly, I wonder if, had they been found anywhere else, these
children would have been classed as murder victims. The older one is
said to have osteomyelitis of the jaw. My mum nursed a lot of cases
of osteomyelitis during World War II. I asked her how they got on.
Well, they all died, of course, she said.
Marie
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> You wrote: So many people
> have lived in the Tower over the centuries they could date from any
era, and
> it is only because they were found under a stair, as More had
written, that
> people took them for Richard's nephews. Wrong staircase of course,
as they
> were never living in the White Tower, but that never stopped some
people.
> Sad for Richard.
> Paul
Yes. Two things strike me about those bones. One is what a silly way
to try to hide the evidence! Okay, so we're not sure whether they
were buried under the staircase or next to it, but if underneath it
would have been a big job - couldn't possibly have passed unnoticed.
If beside, there would be the problem of hiding the recently-dug
spot. It takes weeks for a grave to settle. So perhaps these bodies
had been put there much earlier on. There has been a lot written on
the possibility of foundation sacrifices. Also, I'm sure I've read
that bodies were sometimes buried under staircases. This would be
because, like all boundary points, these were held to exist between
the worlds. So an excellent place for a foundation sacrifice.
Secondly, I wonder if, had they been found anywhere else, these
children would have been classed as murder victims. The older one is
said to have osteomyelitis of the jaw. My mum nursed a lot of cases
of osteomyelitis during World War II. I asked her how they got on.
Well, they all died, of course, she said.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-07 12:06:44
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> I’m still trying to understand the rules as the 15th
> century players saw them.
aren't we all!
>Who could get away with breaking them?
well it seems to me that anyone could from the Pope on down.
>So Margaret Beaufort was able to profit because the
>rules allowed her to combine piety with realpolitik.
>Is that right?
I don't see why not.
>Why didn’tshe get credit for being pious, as Margaret Beaufort
>did?
probably because of the religious divide not obvious in the fifteenth
century. Oh and the fact that she burned so many people for disagreeing with
her take on the Mass.
>I’ve forgotten the details, but I remember reading that Pope Innocent III,
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Roger Williams were responsible for many
>deaths.
probably in the same way that Hitler and Stalin were. Who was Roger
Williams? Sounds like a tennis player to me<g>!
Paul
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> I’m still trying to understand the rules as the 15th
> century players saw them.
aren't we all!
>Who could get away with breaking them?
well it seems to me that anyone could from the Pope on down.
>So Margaret Beaufort was able to profit because the
>rules allowed her to combine piety with realpolitik.
>Is that right?
I don't see why not.
>Why didn’tshe get credit for being pious, as Margaret Beaufort
>did?
probably because of the religious divide not obvious in the fifteenth
century. Oh and the fact that she burned so many people for disagreeing with
her take on the Mass.
>I’ve forgotten the details, but I remember reading that Pope Innocent III,
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Roger Williams were responsible for many
>deaths.
probably in the same way that Hitler and Stalin were. Who was Roger
Williams? Sounds like a tennis player to me<g>!
Paul
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-08 01:49:17
Hello Victoria and Paul!
Paul wrote: > Who was Roger
> Williams? Sounds like a tennis player to me<g>!
> Paul
***
I don't know if there's a tennis player called Roger
Williams. There may be. But the Roger Williams I
named is the Roger Williams Victoria has told us
about.
>
Victoria wrote: Roger Williams was the founder of
Rhode Island. He was banished from Boston,
MA for questioning the Puritan faith, so him and a
group of followers started a settlement at Providence,
RI where religious freedom for all was established and
they paid the Native Americans for using their land.
Good thing you asked this, it's on my big ap american
history test on friday! lol
***
Good answer, Victoria. I hope you Ace your test!
Now I have to correct the mistake I made. I should
have said John Winthrop instead of Roger Williams.
John Winthrop, one of the founders of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony, led the movement to banish
Roger Williams. Later Winthrop and his supporters
banished Anne Hutchinson and her family from
Massachusetts as well.
Winthrop and his supporters were indirectly the cause
of Anne Hutchinson's death, with 5 of her children in
an Indian uprising.
Sorry for any confusion I've caused.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Paul wrote: > Who was Roger
> Williams? Sounds like a tennis player to me<g>!
> Paul
***
I don't know if there's a tennis player called Roger
Williams. There may be. But the Roger Williams I
named is the Roger Williams Victoria has told us
about.
>
Victoria wrote: Roger Williams was the founder of
Rhode Island. He was banished from Boston,
MA for questioning the Puritan faith, so him and a
group of followers started a settlement at Providence,
RI where religious freedom for all was established and
they paid the Native Americans for using their land.
Good thing you asked this, it's on my big ap american
history test on friday! lol
***
Good answer, Victoria. I hope you Ace your test!
Now I have to correct the mistake I made. I should
have said John Winthrop instead of Roger Williams.
John Winthrop, one of the founders of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony, led the movement to banish
Roger Williams. Later Winthrop and his supporters
banished Anne Hutchinson and her family from
Massachusetts as well.
Winthrop and his supporters were indirectly the cause
of Anne Hutchinson's death, with 5 of her children in
an Indian uprising.
Sorry for any confusion I've caused.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-09 11:04:26
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 12:07:26 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
Marion wrote a few days ago
>> I’m still trying to understand the rules as the 15th century players saw
them.
>> Who could get away with breaking them?
I'm reading a biography of William Tyndale, and while jumping into Luther's
camp he kind of makes sense of 15/16th century attitudes to religion and
piety by writing
" if through fragility we fall a thousand times a day, yet if we do repent
again, we have always mercy laid up for us in store in Jesus Christ our
Lord."
Of course he was saying that each man could do this in a direct relationship
with God, without the intervention of a priest, which in the 15th century
was not often challenged, but which is what caused Tyndale problems in the
16th!
Any help?
Paul
> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 12:07:26 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
Marion wrote a few days ago
>> I’m still trying to understand the rules as the 15th century players saw
them.
>> Who could get away with breaking them?
I'm reading a biography of William Tyndale, and while jumping into Luther's
camp he kind of makes sense of 15/16th century attitudes to religion and
piety by writing
" if through fragility we fall a thousand times a day, yet if we do repent
again, we have always mercy laid up for us in store in Jesus Christ our
Lord."
Of course he was saying that each man could do this in a direct relationship
with God, without the intervention of a priest, which in the 15th century
was not often challenged, but which is what caused Tyndale problems in the
16th!
Any help?
Paul
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-09 17:54:21
Hello Marie!
You wrote: ýý what a silly way to hide the evidence.ý
***
If I understand the ground plans Iýve looked at, that
staircase was *inside* a building that was added to
the South side of the White Tower between 1200 AD and
1270 AD. If thatýs the case, how could anyone dig a
ten foot deep grave, carry a wooden chest into the
building, put the bodies inside, lower it into the
grave, and replace ten feet of earth without anyone
questioning them?
There was a lot of activity in the Tower. The Royal
Mint, Office of Ordinance, and Royal Menangerie must
have needed guards. Wouldnýt at least one of those
guards have questioned a person carrying a shovel and
wooden chest across the grounds to the White Tower?
How would the nephewsý murderer explain himself to the
guards?
***
You wrote: The older one is said to have had
osteomyelitis of the jaw
***
Is there any evidence beside the Tanner and Wright
study (1933) that Edward V suffered from
osteomyelitis? Did any of Edward Výs contemporaries
mention that he was in poor health?
If the bones in the urn arenýt those of Richardýs
nephews, the osteomyelitis in the jawbone from the urn
doesnýt give us any information about Edward V.
I agree with your point: that the bones in the urn may
*not* have been the bones of murder victims, whoever
they belonged to and whenever they were buried.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You wrote: ýý what a silly way to hide the evidence.ý
***
If I understand the ground plans Iýve looked at, that
staircase was *inside* a building that was added to
the South side of the White Tower between 1200 AD and
1270 AD. If thatýs the case, how could anyone dig a
ten foot deep grave, carry a wooden chest into the
building, put the bodies inside, lower it into the
grave, and replace ten feet of earth without anyone
questioning them?
There was a lot of activity in the Tower. The Royal
Mint, Office of Ordinance, and Royal Menangerie must
have needed guards. Wouldnýt at least one of those
guards have questioned a person carrying a shovel and
wooden chest across the grounds to the White Tower?
How would the nephewsý murderer explain himself to the
guards?
***
You wrote: The older one is said to have had
osteomyelitis of the jaw
***
Is there any evidence beside the Tanner and Wright
study (1933) that Edward V suffered from
osteomyelitis? Did any of Edward Výs contemporaries
mention that he was in poor health?
If the bones in the urn arenýt those of Richardýs
nephews, the osteomyelitis in the jawbone from the urn
doesnýt give us any information about Edward V.
I agree with your point: that the bones in the urn may
*not* have been the bones of murder victims, whoever
they belonged to and whenever they were buried.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-09 19:49:36
--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
>
You wrote: "… what a silly way to hide the evidence."
Hi Marion.
You wrote:
If I understand the ground plans I've looked at, that
staircase was *inside* a building that was added to
the South side of the White Tower between 1200 AD and
1270 AD. If that's the case, how could anyone dig a
ten foot deep grave, carry a wooden chest into the
building, put the bodies inside, lower it into the
grave, and replace ten feet of earth without anyone
questioning them?
Yes, that's also my understanding. I'm afraid I still can't get at my
files (so can't give details on the Westminster book yet either, I'm
afraid). I believe it was a building attached to the SE side of the
White Tower, and the staircase gave access to the chapel in same. So
the building in question was inside the royal enclosure, Coldharbour.
However, on the other side of the argument is the fact that it was
reported that the boys were moved further inside the Tower, and there
the bodies were found, in the interior end of the royal apartments. I
think Paul said they were never held in the White Tower, but a) we
don't actually know that, and b)this staircase was not in the White
Tower but, as you say, in a building that abutted on to it. Had they
died unshriven, I suppose someone might have wanted to 'fix' their
unquiet spirits by burying them in one of these boundary points, but
as near as possible to hallowed ground.
You wrote
> There was a lot of activity in the Tower. The Royal
> Mint, Office of Ordinance, and Royal Menangerie must
> have needed guards. Wouldn't at least one of those
> guards have questioned a person carrying a shovel and
> wooden chest across the grounds to the White Tower?
> How would the nephews' murderer explain himself to the
> guards?
Unfortunately, as I recall the royal menagerie was in the Lion
Tower, which I think was the gateway tower on the outer side of the
moat, well to the west of the main block. Certainly it was well away
from the private central enclosure. In fact, the menagerie was always
open to the public. I mentioned in an earlier message that the inner
court (part of which was walled off for the royal apartments), was
itself surrounded by an outer court, like a surrounding square of
streets. I seem to remember the mint was in there, on either the west
or north side. So, again, completely separate from the royal
apartments.
I don't know where the ordnance was kept, but very possibly in the
inner court. Also relevant, perhaps, would be the staff of the chapel
of St Peter ad Vincula, which is in the central courtyard (ie Tower
Green), though not in the royal enclosure. But certainly there would
have been people around. There were always guards, and I think many
of them would have been in the White Tower. And of course Brackenbury
or his deputy, cooks, washerwomen and general servants.
> ***
>
> You wrote:
> Is there any evidence beside the Tanner and Wright
> study (1933) that Edward V suffered from
> osteomyelitis? Did any of Edward V's contemporaries
> mention that he was in poor health?
Not so far as I know. Of course, no one's been allowed a look at the
bones since. Other experts have examined the X-rays, however, and so
far as I know, no one has seriously disputed it. There was some sort
of corrosion of of the jaw. I don't know if there is anything else
that could have caused that particular piece of bone to deteriorate
more quickly than the rest after death. So far as I'm aware the only
possible clue that Edward might have been ill comes from Mancini's
statement that his physician says he was preparing himself for death -
that perhaps this wasn't fear of murder but response to illness.
I take your point that if it isn't Edward in the urn it doesn't get
us anywhere. Even if the bones can be dated to the relevant time, it
still won't tell us who killed them. I brought it up mainly because
the osteomyelitis is often cited by traditionalists without any
attempt to deal with the implications.
There are still some trying to argue that the Princes were murdered
really early, even before Richard became king (I am just reading Sean
Cunningham's new book, trying to use that old chestnut of the grant
to Howard of the duchy of Norfolk). I presume this is because it is
easier to argue Richard's guilt (as opposed to Buckingham's or
Margaret Beaufort's) if it happened before Richard left the capital.
However, in looking at the Buckingham problem I got to thinking about
Mancini's comment on the doctor. He says after Hastings' death Edward
V's attendants were gradually withdrawn, the last of them to go
being "a Strasbourg doctor", with whom one gets the impression he had
spoken. This, apparently, was Dr John Argentine.
Kendall mentioned a grant in Harley 433 paying off men who had served
Edward V. This was dated 18 July. So I thought I'd look to see if
Argentine's name was on it since he was the last to be sacked. No it
wasn't. So I can only presume that on 18th July (the day before
Richard left Greenwich for Windsor and the start of his progress). Dr
Argentine was still in attendance on Edward V in the Tower. Or am I
being naive?
Marie
>
> Marion
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
>
You wrote: "… what a silly way to hide the evidence."
Hi Marion.
You wrote:
If I understand the ground plans I've looked at, that
staircase was *inside* a building that was added to
the South side of the White Tower between 1200 AD and
1270 AD. If that's the case, how could anyone dig a
ten foot deep grave, carry a wooden chest into the
building, put the bodies inside, lower it into the
grave, and replace ten feet of earth without anyone
questioning them?
Yes, that's also my understanding. I'm afraid I still can't get at my
files (so can't give details on the Westminster book yet either, I'm
afraid). I believe it was a building attached to the SE side of the
White Tower, and the staircase gave access to the chapel in same. So
the building in question was inside the royal enclosure, Coldharbour.
However, on the other side of the argument is the fact that it was
reported that the boys were moved further inside the Tower, and there
the bodies were found, in the interior end of the royal apartments. I
think Paul said they were never held in the White Tower, but a) we
don't actually know that, and b)this staircase was not in the White
Tower but, as you say, in a building that abutted on to it. Had they
died unshriven, I suppose someone might have wanted to 'fix' their
unquiet spirits by burying them in one of these boundary points, but
as near as possible to hallowed ground.
You wrote
> There was a lot of activity in the Tower. The Royal
> Mint, Office of Ordinance, and Royal Menangerie must
> have needed guards. Wouldn't at least one of those
> guards have questioned a person carrying a shovel and
> wooden chest across the grounds to the White Tower?
> How would the nephews' murderer explain himself to the
> guards?
Unfortunately, as I recall the royal menagerie was in the Lion
Tower, which I think was the gateway tower on the outer side of the
moat, well to the west of the main block. Certainly it was well away
from the private central enclosure. In fact, the menagerie was always
open to the public. I mentioned in an earlier message that the inner
court (part of which was walled off for the royal apartments), was
itself surrounded by an outer court, like a surrounding square of
streets. I seem to remember the mint was in there, on either the west
or north side. So, again, completely separate from the royal
apartments.
I don't know where the ordnance was kept, but very possibly in the
inner court. Also relevant, perhaps, would be the staff of the chapel
of St Peter ad Vincula, which is in the central courtyard (ie Tower
Green), though not in the royal enclosure. But certainly there would
have been people around. There were always guards, and I think many
of them would have been in the White Tower. And of course Brackenbury
or his deputy, cooks, washerwomen and general servants.
> ***
>
> You wrote:
> Is there any evidence beside the Tanner and Wright
> study (1933) that Edward V suffered from
> osteomyelitis? Did any of Edward V's contemporaries
> mention that he was in poor health?
Not so far as I know. Of course, no one's been allowed a look at the
bones since. Other experts have examined the X-rays, however, and so
far as I know, no one has seriously disputed it. There was some sort
of corrosion of of the jaw. I don't know if there is anything else
that could have caused that particular piece of bone to deteriorate
more quickly than the rest after death. So far as I'm aware the only
possible clue that Edward might have been ill comes from Mancini's
statement that his physician says he was preparing himself for death -
that perhaps this wasn't fear of murder but response to illness.
I take your point that if it isn't Edward in the urn it doesn't get
us anywhere. Even if the bones can be dated to the relevant time, it
still won't tell us who killed them. I brought it up mainly because
the osteomyelitis is often cited by traditionalists without any
attempt to deal with the implications.
There are still some trying to argue that the Princes were murdered
really early, even before Richard became king (I am just reading Sean
Cunningham's new book, trying to use that old chestnut of the grant
to Howard of the duchy of Norfolk). I presume this is because it is
easier to argue Richard's guilt (as opposed to Buckingham's or
Margaret Beaufort's) if it happened before Richard left the capital.
However, in looking at the Buckingham problem I got to thinking about
Mancini's comment on the doctor. He says after Hastings' death Edward
V's attendants were gradually withdrawn, the last of them to go
being "a Strasbourg doctor", with whom one gets the impression he had
spoken. This, apparently, was Dr John Argentine.
Kendall mentioned a grant in Harley 433 paying off men who had served
Edward V. This was dated 18 July. So I thought I'd look to see if
Argentine's name was on it since he was the last to be sacked. No it
wasn't. So I can only presume that on 18th July (the day before
Richard left Greenwich for Windsor and the start of his progress). Dr
Argentine was still in attendance on Edward V in the Tower. Or am I
being naive?
Marie
>
> Marion
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-10 10:51:08
According to contemporary records, Edward IV liked his
food and many great banquet were held at his court
during his reign with copious amounts of 'sweetmeats'
and other goodies, which could have resulted in his
children consuming foods which weren't good for their
teeth, so the problems in the jawbone of the larger of
the skeletons discovered in the Tower could well have
started from tooth decay, caused by too many sweets
and sugary foods, if that body was that of young King
Edward V.
Dr Argentine subsequently became the Provost of one of
the Oxford or Cambridge Colleges and would have been
in a very good position to know or to make an
educated guess, about the fate of the two princes in
the Tower.
In those troubled times, when servants knew their
places and had no civil rights, one didn't call a
spade a spade, nor ask awkward questions.
It is doubtful that workmen carrying spades or shovels
in that busy fortress would have attracted any
comment, especially as staff were inclined to keep
their heads down, in case they got chopped off!
There was an article in the press about two years ago
I think, about proposals to conduct DNA tests on these
bones which were found in the Tower and believed to be
those of the two princes.
The tests would involve known descendants of the
female line and I think that Neville was one of the
families mentioned, of whom there are quite a few
descendants still living, including actress Jane
Asher.
Lomond Handley
lomondhandley@...
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
food and many great banquet were held at his court
during his reign with copious amounts of 'sweetmeats'
and other goodies, which could have resulted in his
children consuming foods which weren't good for their
teeth, so the problems in the jawbone of the larger of
the skeletons discovered in the Tower could well have
started from tooth decay, caused by too many sweets
and sugary foods, if that body was that of young King
Edward V.
Dr Argentine subsequently became the Provost of one of
the Oxford or Cambridge Colleges and would have been
in a very good position to know or to make an
educated guess, about the fate of the two princes in
the Tower.
In those troubled times, when servants knew their
places and had no civil rights, one didn't call a
spade a spade, nor ask awkward questions.
It is doubtful that workmen carrying spades or shovels
in that busy fortress would have attracted any
comment, especially as staff were inclined to keep
their heads down, in case they got chopped off!
There was an article in the press about two years ago
I think, about proposals to conduct DNA tests on these
bones which were found in the Tower and believed to be
those of the two princes.
The tests would involve known descendants of the
female line and I think that Neville was one of the
families mentioned, of whom there are quite a few
descendants still living, including actress Jane
Asher.
Lomond Handley
lomondhandley@...
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-10 11:44:09
--- In , LOMOND HANDLEY
<lomondhandley@y...> wrote:
> According to contemporary records, Edward IV liked his
> food and many great banquet were held at his court
> during his reign with copious amounts of 'sweetmeats'
> and other goodies, which could have resulted in his
> children consuming foods which weren't good for their
> teeth, so the problems in the jawbone of the larger of
> the skeletons discovered in the Tower could well have
> started from tooth decay, caused by too many sweets
> and sugary foods, if that body was that of young King
> Edward V.
Yes, but I don't think sugar itself was available in more than
condiment quantities at this time. The sweetmeants would also have
relied on honey and the natural sweetness of dried fruits, which were
used in enormous quantities. These, of course, would also damage the
teeth. I presume that osteomyelitis of the jaw (if that is what it
was) is most likely to have started with an abscess around a tooth,
but I'm neither a dentist nor a doctor, so I may be wrong.
Marie
>
> Dr Argentine subsequently became the Provost of one of
> the Oxford or Cambridge Colleges and would have been
> in a very good position to know or to make an
> educated guess, about the fate of the two princes in
> the Tower.
Well, yes, he was attending Edward V! But he knew nothing after he
was dismissed. My point was merely that, putting the two records
together, Edward V would seem to have been still alive on 18th July.
Marie
>
> In those troubled times, when servants knew their
> places and had no civil rights, one didn't call a
> spade a spade, nor ask awkward questions.
>
> It is doubtful that workmen carrying spades or shovels
> in that busy fortress would have attracted any
> comment, especially as staff were inclined to keep
> their heads down, in case they got chopped off!
No, but that sort of job could not have been carried out without
someone hearing some sort of noise. Also, the building would have
been out of bounds at least for the duration of the burial; also it
is unlikely that everything could have been put back without ANY sign
of disturbance. So I'm puzzled as to why nobody was later able to
relate any of this to Henry VII. In which case perhaps the bodies
belong to an earlier period, or Henry had his own reasons for not
wanting the matter publicised.
>
> There was an article in the press about two years ago
> I think, about proposals to conduct DNA tests on these
> bones which were found in the Tower and believed to be
> those of the two princes.
>
> The tests would involve known descendants of the
> female line and I think that Neville was one of the
> families mentioned, of whom there are quite a few
> descendants still living, including actress Jane
> Asher.
I know there is talk of radio-carbon tests, but no permission has
been granted for this yet. I believe the Queen is not favourable, nor
Westminster Abbey. Also there are many who argue that if we're only
going to get one more chance to examine the bones we should wait
until we have better tests. As regards DNA, I believe there is no DNA
in bone. I know that in desert conditions DNA can survive inside the
teeth for thousands of years, but in English conditions this is
highly unlikely even for bones of this age. And it would need to be
in good enough state for them to find the particular markers they're
looking for. It seems the best we are likely to get at the moment is
a very very rough period of death from the radio carbon, which may or
may not enable us to eliminate them but will certainly not give any
positive answers.
Marie
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Plus
> For a better Internet experience
> http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
<lomondhandley@y...> wrote:
> According to contemporary records, Edward IV liked his
> food and many great banquet were held at his court
> during his reign with copious amounts of 'sweetmeats'
> and other goodies, which could have resulted in his
> children consuming foods which weren't good for their
> teeth, so the problems in the jawbone of the larger of
> the skeletons discovered in the Tower could well have
> started from tooth decay, caused by too many sweets
> and sugary foods, if that body was that of young King
> Edward V.
Yes, but I don't think sugar itself was available in more than
condiment quantities at this time. The sweetmeants would also have
relied on honey and the natural sweetness of dried fruits, which were
used in enormous quantities. These, of course, would also damage the
teeth. I presume that osteomyelitis of the jaw (if that is what it
was) is most likely to have started with an abscess around a tooth,
but I'm neither a dentist nor a doctor, so I may be wrong.
Marie
>
> Dr Argentine subsequently became the Provost of one of
> the Oxford or Cambridge Colleges and would have been
> in a very good position to know or to make an
> educated guess, about the fate of the two princes in
> the Tower.
Well, yes, he was attending Edward V! But he knew nothing after he
was dismissed. My point was merely that, putting the two records
together, Edward V would seem to have been still alive on 18th July.
Marie
>
> In those troubled times, when servants knew their
> places and had no civil rights, one didn't call a
> spade a spade, nor ask awkward questions.
>
> It is doubtful that workmen carrying spades or shovels
> in that busy fortress would have attracted any
> comment, especially as staff were inclined to keep
> their heads down, in case they got chopped off!
No, but that sort of job could not have been carried out without
someone hearing some sort of noise. Also, the building would have
been out of bounds at least for the duration of the burial; also it
is unlikely that everything could have been put back without ANY sign
of disturbance. So I'm puzzled as to why nobody was later able to
relate any of this to Henry VII. In which case perhaps the bodies
belong to an earlier period, or Henry had his own reasons for not
wanting the matter publicised.
>
> There was an article in the press about two years ago
> I think, about proposals to conduct DNA tests on these
> bones which were found in the Tower and believed to be
> those of the two princes.
>
> The tests would involve known descendants of the
> female line and I think that Neville was one of the
> families mentioned, of whom there are quite a few
> descendants still living, including actress Jane
> Asher.
I know there is talk of radio-carbon tests, but no permission has
been granted for this yet. I believe the Queen is not favourable, nor
Westminster Abbey. Also there are many who argue that if we're only
going to get one more chance to examine the bones we should wait
until we have better tests. As regards DNA, I believe there is no DNA
in bone. I know that in desert conditions DNA can survive inside the
teeth for thousands of years, but in English conditions this is
highly unlikely even for bones of this age. And it would need to be
in good enough state for them to find the particular markers they're
looking for. It seems the best we are likely to get at the moment is
a very very rough period of death from the radio carbon, which may or
may not enable us to eliminate them but will certainly not give any
positive answers.
Marie
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Plus
> For a better Internet experience
> http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Re: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-23 17:52:10
Hello Paul!
You wrote: "If through fragility we fall a thousand
times a day, yet if we do repent again, we have always
mercy laid up for us in store in Jesus Christ our
Lord."
***
Thanks for this quote.
I visited the William Tyndale website, which is
impressive.
I also looked up Tyndale in Barbara Tuchman's "Bible
and Sword." On p. 94, she writes that Sir Thomas More
opposed the Bishop of London's decision to buy and
destroy as many of Tyndale's Bibles as possible. More
believed that the money would help Tyndale and his
supporters continue their work. He was right.
Balancing religious ideals with the demands of
everyday living seems to be difficult anywhere and at
any time. This is a subject I'll have to stay aware
of as I continue to learn about Richard and his times.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
You wrote: "If through fragility we fall a thousand
times a day, yet if we do repent again, we have always
mercy laid up for us in store in Jesus Christ our
Lord."
***
Thanks for this quote.
I visited the William Tyndale website, which is
impressive.
I also looked up Tyndale in Barbara Tuchman's "Bible
and Sword." On p. 94, she writes that Sir Thomas More
opposed the Bishop of London's decision to buy and
destroy as many of Tyndale's Bibles as possible. More
believed that the money would help Tyndale and his
supporters continue their work. He was right.
Balancing religious ideals with the demands of
everyday living seems to be difficult anywhere and at
any time. This is a subject I'll have to stay aware
of as I continue to learn about Richard and his times.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
2003-05-24 17:51:49
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> Balancing religious ideals with the demands of
> everyday living seems to be difficult anywhere and at
> any time. This is a subject I'll have to stay aware
> of as I continue to learn about Richard and his times.
Certainly is. Richard's mother managed four masses in the morning while
supervising her entire household, and doubtless caring for much of her
husband's affairs too.
Paul
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Geoffrey of Monmouth
>
> Balancing religious ideals with the demands of
> everyday living seems to be difficult anywhere and at
> any time. This is a subject I'll have to stay aware
> of as I continue to learn about Richard and his times.
Certainly is. Richard's mother managed four masses in the morning while
supervising her entire household, and doubtless caring for much of her
husband's affairs too.
Paul
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.