Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Sealed- up princes

The problem with these bones is that everyone who "finds" them, from Raleigh, C17 workmen and historians right up to the Official Examination of 1933, knew what they expected to find. I suggest that the evidence is always made to fit the conclusion, even if subconsciously.
If another examination, using DNA were to take place, foreign, neutral experts must be used throughout and those in the service of the House of Windsor (descended from Henry the Unmentionable, even including our patron) must not be allowed to influence it.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Sealed- up princes


--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > The wallewd-up ones don't exist, unfortunately. Unless they're
the
> > same pair again.
>
> Oh, news to me, obviously!

Thought I'd better rename this thread. Sorry if above is a bit
tasteless.

I made some notes from Maurer's articles, which I've just dug out
(sorry!). So I thought it might be interesting to quote all the
sources on finds in the order they were written, and maybe get a
discussion going:

1. 1619-22. Author Buck:
"... there were certain bones, like the bones of a child, found
lately in a high and desolate turrent in the Tower. And they suppose
that these bones were the bones of one of these young princes."
He speculates that they may have been the bones of an ape escaped
from the menagerie.

2. 1622. Added by Ralph Brooke to the new edition of his 'Catalogue
and Succession of the... Kings of England' (first published 1619):
'Richard... was (with his brother Prince Edward) murdered in the
Tower of London; which place ever since hath been mured up and not
known until of late, when their dead carcases were there found, under
a heap of stones and rubbish.'

3. 1647. Author John Webbb (b.1611), deputy to Inigo Jones as
Surveyor of the King's Works (Jones had that job 1615-47). However,
based on info received not from jones but from the from son of Robert
Johnson, said son claiming his father had been an eyewitness. Other
eye-witnesses mentioned were officers of the Mint Mr. Palmer and
Henry Cogan:
a sealed room was found "wherein there stood a table and upon it the
bones of two children supposed of 6 or 8 years of age, which by the
aforesaid nobles [Raleigh and Grey of Wilton] wre credibly believed
to be the carcases of Edward the 5th and his brother the Duke of York"
Raleigh was held in the Bloody Tower, and Grey somewhere near the
Privy Lodgings

4. 1674 or 1901??? In 1910 Richard Davey claimed to have found this
written in the margin of a MS on heraldry inherited from his
grandfather, but Tanner was unable to trace said manuscript:
'This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men dig out of a
stairway in the White Tower the bones of those two princes who were
foully murdered by Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in
their teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about them.
Being fully recognised to be the bones of those two princes, they
were carefully put aside in a stone coffin or coffer.'
(Certain modern writers have suggested the word 'teens' is
anachronistic, but in fact the OED does trace the origins of the word
to the Restoration period.)

5. 1674. Author John Gibbon, Bluemantle Herald, who lived in St
Katharine's Hospital next to the Tower:
"Die veneris July 17 1674. In digging some foundations in the Tower,
were discovered the bodies of Edward V and his brother murdered 1483.
I myself handled the bones, especially the king's skull; the other,
which was lesser, was broken in the digging."


6. 1675 (after 18th February). Author Sir Winston Churchill
(from 'Divi Britannici'):
"He [Richard] called a bloody villain out of his bed to smother them
in theirs, who performed that horrid deed of darkness with so much
secrecy that the truth of his falsehood could not be detected till
within these very few weeks, when some, occasionally digging in the
Tower at the very place where it seems that poor priest buried them
who afterward died for his piety, they found the coffin, and in it
the bones of both the princes, as well his whom Perkin Warbeck
personated as the King his brother, which (I take it) are yet to be
seen, or were very lately, in the custody of Sir Thomas Chicheley,
the Master of the Ordnance, to whom his Majesty hath entrusted the
making a fitting monument for them in the Abbey of Westminster."
(The warrant for the urn was issued on 18th February 1675.)

7. 1675. Inscription on the urn (translated from Latin):
"in the rubble of the stairs (these stairs recently led to the chapel
in the White Tower), deeply buried, by the most certain signs were
found, 17 July 1674"

8. 1675 (or after). Author John Knight, chief surgeon to Charles II:
"Anno 1674. In digging down a pair of stone stairs leading from the
king's lodgings to the chapel in the White Tower, there were found
the bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest, which
upon the presumption that they were the bones of this king and his
brother Richard Duke of York, were by the command of King Charles the
2nd put into a marble urn and deposited amongst the royal family in
Henry 7th Chapel in Westminster at my importunity. Jo. Knight"

9. 1675 (or after). Author Sandford, based on a note from John
Knight. From 'Genealogical History of the King's of England':
"Upon Friday the .. day of July Anno 1674 (take this relation from a
gentleman, an eye-witness and principally concerned in the whole
scrutiny), in order to the rebuilding of the several offices in the
Tower, and to clear the White Tower from all contiguous buildings:
digging down the stairs which led from the King's lodgings to the
chapel in the said tower, about ten foot in the ground were found the
bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest which, upon
the survey, were found proportionable to the ages of those two
brothers - viz. about thirteen and eleven years, the skull of one
being entire, the other broken, as were indeed many of the other
bones, as also the chest, by the violence of the labourers, who, not
being sensible of what they had in hand, cast the rubbish and them
away together; wherefore they were caused to sift the rubbish, and by
that means preserved all the bones. The circumstances from the story
being considered, and the same discoursed with the Right Honourable
Sir Thomas Chicheley, Kt., Master of the Ordnance (by whose industry
the new buildings were then in carrying on, and by whom this matter
was reported to the King), upon the presumption that these were the
bones of the said princes, his Majesty King Charles II was graciously
pleased to command that the said bones should be put into a marble
urn and deposited among the relics of the Royal Family in the Chapel
of King Henry the Seventh in Westminster Abbey"

10. 1680. Author John Aubrey. Based on information from his father,
who had the story from Maurice of Nassau (apparently Grey de Wilton
had once founght under Maurice but there is no suggestion that he was
the ultimate source):
". . . there were found in this chamber upon a bed two little
carcases with two halters round their necks. These were the skeletons
of King Edward V and the Duke of York.... But the prudent princess
[Elizabeth I] had the door walled up as before. However, I learned
that this same door had been opened a short time ago and, the
skeletons being found in the same place, the King of England...
resolved to erect a mausoleum, and have them transported to
Westminster Abbey..."

Marie




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> The problem with these bones is that everyone who "finds" them,
from Raleigh, C17 workmen and historians right up to the Official
Examination of 1933, knew what they expected to find. I suggest that
the evidence is always made to fit the conclusion, even if
subconsciously.
> If another examination, using DNA were to take place, foreign,
neutral experts must be used throughout and those in the service of
the House of Windsor (descended from Henry the Unmentionable, even
including our patron) must not be allowed to influence it.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Sealed- up princes
>
>

Absolutely. Reminds me not only of tanner and Wright but also of the
Turin Shroud fiasco.

I am bemused by what can pass as science. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm
scratching my head about the work of Dr Theya Molleson in the 1980s,
who found both "Edward V" and Anne Mowbray shared a rare dental
condition and she and the bones in the urn also shared distinctive
features of the hands and feet (didn't know there were any feet in
the urn, but you live & learn). Given that the nearest common
ancestors of Anne Mowbray and the Princes - Westmoreland and Joan
Beaufort - were the Princes' great-grandparents and Anne's great-
great-grandparents, and that everyone carries a double set of genes
to start with, so that even siblings only have 50% in common, and a
lot of those will be recessive and won't manifest. . . and that most
genes will be normal and won't lead to distinctive features. . . and
that there's so little remaining of the bodies from the Tower. . .

Surely this HAS to be another case of seeing what you expect, even if
these are the Princes.

And word of mouth is VERY fickle. Years of living in a village and a
certain local history book which cast an entirely new light (or two
entirely new lights) on my own great-grandfather's adventures in the
California Gold Rush, have taught me that. Given that his name was
different in each version, and that one was set in California and the
other in Australia, it's little wonder the author didn't realise he
had a duplication on his hands!
I personally liked the one where he was surrounded by 8 bandits in
the Rockies and died at the end of a fierce shoot-out (seems those
bandits must have voluntarily confessed. . . ). Although I liked the
title of the other one: "Walked Home from Australia" has a certain
ring to it, doesn't it?

Marie

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> The problem with these bones is that everyone who "finds" them,
from Raleigh, C17 workmen and historians right up to the Official
Examination of 1933, knew what they expected to find. I suggest that
the evidence is always made to fit the conclusion, even if
subconsciously.
> If another examination, using DNA were to take place, foreign,
neutral experts must be used throughout and those in the service of
the House of Windsor (descended from Henry the Unmentionable, even
including our patron) must not be allowed to influence it.
> -----
>
>Hmmmm....So a skeleton was found high up in a tower, or two
skeletons were found in a coffin, or in a box, or not in a box,
under some stairs, or under the floor near some stairs, or in a heaf
of rubble, or on a bed in a secret room, or a secret room was found
empty, (or THREE skeletons were found, according to Sir Winston
Churchill, one of them presumably being Edward Earl of Warwick who
was supposedly seen alive years after the last sighting of the other
two boys)...well, that certainly clears it up, doesn't it?

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that several skeletons could be found
in the Tower, even if you restrict that name to meaning only the
White Tower, which was already six centuries old when these bones
came to light.

As you said, people were finding what they expected to find. I would
think that any layman could tell an ape skeleton from a human one, so
I would assume George Buck never saw the bones for himself, and if he
wasn't told they were ape bones by someone who did see them, then
they were probably human. Further evidence that people found what
threy wanted to find is the description of the boines being from
two "striplings", a term I believe is restricted to males, eeve and
thirteen years of age -- why, the very ages of the lost princes! --
without any indication of how this forensic feat of age determination
was made. There are ways to determine the age at death of bones,
but I don't know that they were known in the 17th century.

In Item 3 the ages of the skeletons (six and eight years of age) are
out of the range of possibility for our favorite vanished kiddies.
But the story abou tthe sealed room containing skeletons and a table
reminds me of the story that a secret room near the base of the
fireplace had been found at Minster Lovell, and in it was the
skeleton of a man seated at a table. (Early on in my reading on R
III I read that after the Battle of Stoke, Francis Lovell had either
drowned trying to swim his horse across the Trent, or had starved to
death in a secet room in hs home. I was bemused about that
interesting pair of choices for days. Two very different possible
fates...looked like they had been picked out of a grab-bag. Why stop
there? Maybe he had been killed by a falling meteorite. Maybe he
had fled to France disguised as a lady's maid and drank himself to
death there. Maybe he to journeyed to India and took up smoking
hemp and playing the sitar....

Katy


>
> >
>

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > The problem with these bones is that everyone who "finds" them,
> from Raleigh, C17 workmen and historians right up to the Official
> Examination of 1933, knew what they expected to find. I suggest
that
> the evidence is always made to fit the conclusion, even if
> subconsciously.
> > If another examination, using DNA were to take place, foreign,
> neutral experts must be used throughout and those in the service of
> the House of Windsor (descended from Henry the Unmentionable, even
> including our patron) must not be allowed to influence it.
> > -----
> >
> >Hmmmm....So a skeleton was found high up in a tower, or two
> skeletons were found in a coffin, or in a box, or not in a box,
> under some stairs, or under the floor near some stairs, or in a
heaf
> of rubble, or on a bed in a secret room, or a secret room was
found
> empty, (or THREE skeletons were found, according to Sir Winston
> Churchill, one of them presumably being Edward Earl of Warwick who
> was supposedly seen alive years after the last sighting of the
other
> two boys)...

Re-read Churchill. To be fair to the gullible old fool, unless I've
mistyped I think he only says there were two bodies:
1. "his whom Perkin Warbeck personated" - ie Richard Duke of York
2. "the King his brother"

Marie


well, that certainly clears it up, doesn't it?
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to hear that several skeletons could be
found
> in the Tower, even if you restrict that name to meaning only the
> White Tower, which was already six centuries old when these bones
> came to light.
>
> As you said, people were finding what they expected to find. I
would
> think that any layman could tell an ape skeleton from a human one,
so
> I would assume George Buck never saw the bones for himself, and if
he
> wasn't told they were ape bones by someone who did see them, then
> they were probably human. Further evidence that people found what
> threy wanted to find is the description of the boines being from
> two "striplings", a term I believe is restricted to males, eeve and
> thirteen years of age -- why, the very ages of the lost princes! --
> without any indication of how this forensic feat of age
determination
> was made. There are ways to determine the age at death of bones,
> but I don't know that they were known in the 17th century.
>
> In Item 3 the ages of the skeletons (six and eight years of age)
are > out of the range of possibility for our favorite vanished
kiddies.

That writer was perhaps misled about their ages by the "silly babes"
tale. In which case it is still a matter of finding what you think is
supposed to be there.
Marie


> But the story abou tthe sealed room containing skeletons and a
table
> reminds me of the story that a secret room near the base of the
> fireplace had been found at Minster Lovell, and in it was the
> skeleton of a man seated at a table. (Early on in my reading on R
> III I read that after the Battle of Stoke, Francis Lovell had
either
> drowned trying to swim his horse across the Trent, or had starved
to
> death in a secet room in hs home. I was bemused about that
> interesting pair of choices for days. Two very different possible
> fates...looked like they had been picked out of a grab-bag. Why
stop
> there? Maybe he had been killed by a falling meteorite. Maybe he
> had fled to France disguised as a lady's maid and drank himself to
> death there. Maybe he to journeyed to India and took up smoking
> hemp and playing the sitar....
>
> Katy


I was just thinking of the Lovell story myself. Another skeleton that
is SAID to have been found but then nobody's ever been able to
produce it (do I seem to remember it conveniently crumbled away into
dust?).
I visited Minster Lovell once many years ago (a beautiful spot, by
the way). The foundations plus of the house are visible in the way
you get with old ruins open to the public, and I walked round them
but couldn''t see place where this room might have been - at least I
don't think it can have been on the ground floor. Nobody seems to
have any idea quite where this sealed room is supposed to have been.
And wasn't the body supposed to have been found as though sitting up
at a desk writing? Why would you get yourself blocked in and then
just go back to writing your memoirs (for publication at a later
date, no doubt) rather than spending all your energies trying to
escape? I think that is definitely an urban legend. By the time the
body is supposed to have been found people were well familiar with
secret priest holes and might have expected people on the run in the
15th century to use something of the same sort.
However, priests went to houses where they could stay hidden while
the owners kept them supplied in their hidy-hole. Surely Lovell was
attainted and his estates confiscated?? I'll check. But that would
make it impossible for him to return to Minster Lovell.
There is now documentary evidence, in any case, that Lovell was
living in Scotland after Stoke - can't recall the details, I'm
afraid, but it looks as though he died there.
Presumably all it took was some building work at Minster Lovell for
somebody to say idly "Wonder if they'll find Sir Francis
Lovell" . . . and before long that had turned into "Guess what the
workmen found when ....". And then it finally winds up as that
Victorian parlour song "The Misteltoe Bough" where the young Lord
Lovell and his child bride play hide-and-seek and she goes missing
permanently, and her skeleton turns up years later in a big oak chest
where she'd hidden and got trapped.
And of course there's also Salisbury and the body under the staircase
immediately identified as Richard's ex-crony Buckingham.
And the body fished out of the Soar identified as Richard's...
I think all of these show how much people were thinking of the
various claims that had been made for how Richard disposed of the
Princes, and expecting there to have been some sort of poetic justice.

Incidentally, IF it would have been difficult for Richard to have had
the Princes buried under existing apartments in the Tower without
Henry T. having been able to find out:-
Just how much more difficult would it have been to get workmen to
seal up the doorway of a room, with the bodies laid out in the middle
of it (at eye level, on a table, no less) without anyone either
seeing it happen or noticing a room had gone missing afterwards?
And why would you try?

But don't people just love stories of sealed-up rooms? It's like the
Bluebeard legend with the locked room with all the murdered wives.
There are certainly very old versions of that story. There's a
version attached to St Triphine of Brittany, wife of the pagan King
Conomor. Bad king murders people, shuts bodies in secret room....

Marie




>
>
> >
> > >
> >

>
>
> I was just thinking of the Lovell story myself. Another skeleton
that
> is SAID to have been found but then nobody's ever been able to
> produce it (do I seem to remember it conveniently crumbled away
into
> dust?).
> I visited Minster Lovell once many years ago (a beautiful spot, by
> the way). The foundations plus of the house are visible in the way
> you get with old ruins open to the public, and I walked round them
> but couldn''t see place where this room might have been - at least
I
> don't think it can have been on the ground floor. Nobody seems to
> have any idea quite where this sealed room is supposed to have
been.
> And wasn't the body supposed to have been found as though sitting
up
> at a desk writing? Why would you get yourself blocked in and then
> just go back to writing your memoirs (for publication at a later
> date, no doubt) rather than spending all your energies trying to
> escape? I think that is definitely an urban legend. By the time
the
> body is supposed to have been found people were well familiar with
> secret priest holes and might have expected people on the run in
the
> 15th century to use something of the same sort.
> However, priests went to houses where they could stay hidden while
> the owners kept them supplied in their hidy-hole. Surely Lovell
was
> attainted and his estates confiscated?? I'll check. But that would
> make it impossible for him to return to Minster Lovell.
> There is now documentary evidence, in any case, that Lovell was
> living in Scotland after Stoke - can't recall the details, I'm
> afraid, but it looks as though he died there.
> Presumably all it took was some building work at Minster Lovell
for
> somebody to say idly "Wonder if they'll find Sir Francis
> Lovell" . . . and before long that had turned into "Guess what the
> workmen found when ....". And then it finally winds up as that
> Victorian parlour song "The Misteltoe Bough" where the young Lord
> Lovell and his child bride play hide-and-seek and she goes missing
> permanently, and her skeleton turns up years later in a big oak
chest
> where she'd hidden and got trapped.
> And of course there's also Salisbury and the body under the
staircase
> immediately identified as Richard's ex-crony Buckingham.
> And the body fished out of the Soar identified as Richard's...
> I think all of these show how much people were thinking of the
> various claims that had been made for how Richard disposed of the
> Princes, and expecting there to have been some sort of poetic
justice.
>
> Incidentally, IF it would have been difficult for Richard to have
had
> the Princes buried under existing apartments in the Tower without
> Henry T. having been able to find out:-
> Just how much more difficult would it have been to get workmen to
> seal up the doorway of a room, with the bodies laid out in the
middle
> of it (at eye level, on a table, no less) without anyone either
> seeing it happen or noticing a room had gone missing afterwards?
> And why would you try?
>
> But don't people just love stories of sealed-up rooms? It's like
the
> Bluebeard legend with the locked room with all the murdered wives.
> There are certainly very old versions of that story. There's a
> version attached to St Triphine of Brittany, wife of the pagan
King
> Conomor. Bad king murders people, shuts bodies in secret room....
>
> Marie
>
>
I have also been to Minster Lovell and it is, indeed, lovely. But I
seem to recall another explanation for the alleged skeleton found
there (or not), namely a game of hide and seek on a wedding day that
went hideously wrong when the bride (I think) hid in a trunk and
couldn't get out and no-one found her...They can't have looked very
hard and didn't she consider banging? Certainly the proliferation of
similar, variant tales makes one roll one's eyes in despair of ever
finding the truth until they allow DNA tests. Heavens, what if they
do tests and find the abbey urn contains two chimps from the Tower
menagerie? I don't see that the Crown has anything to lose by
allowing it, since if they are definitely NOT the princes it hardly
casts a bad light on anyone as such a mistake would be entirely
reasonable in the circumstances and it was a long time ago. Would
they have a problem if they were found definitely to be the boys
then? I can't see why they should since they are currently assumed
to eb so, and the family don't trace any ancestyr back to the
alleged killer, Richard. So personally I cans ee no logical reason
for the refusal other than a rather bolshy notion of not disturbing
their rest. Which is hardly a viable reason.
Brunhild
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >

--- In > >
> >
> I have also been to Minster Lovell and it is, indeed, lovely. But I
> seem to recall another explanation for the alleged skeleton found
> there (or not), namely a game of hide and seek on a wedding day
that
> went hideously wrong when the bride (I think) hid in a trunk and
> couldn't get out and no-one found her...They can't have looked very
> hard and didn't she consider banging?

Yes, that's the 'Mistletoe Bough' story I mentioned. In fact, it was
am oak chest the bride was supposed to have hidden in. Unfortunately,
that song was written in the 1880s and, although the groom is called
Lord Lovell, it's set in an unnamed castle. I have a small booklet
Freancis Lovell which says the song goes back to the 17th century and
so predates the Lord Lovell in the sealed room story. Problem, is
that booklet doesn't explain that claim. The song known now was
definitely 1880s and the composer is known. Given thew sort of
subject-matter it's likely he based it on an older tale or folksong.
But ya'd need to know whether the 17th version of that mentioned the
name Lovell.




Certainly the proliferation of
> similar, variant tales makes one roll one's eyes in despair of ever
> finding the truth until they allow DNA tests. Heavens, what if they
> do tests and find the abbey urn contains two chimps from the Tower
> menagerie? I don't see that the Crown has anything to lose by
> allowing it, since if they are definitely NOT the princes it hardly
> casts a bad light on anyone as such a mistake would be entirely
> reasonable in the circumstances and it was a long time ago. Would
> they have a problem if they were found definitely to be the boys
> then? I can't see why they should since they are currently assumed
> to eb so, and the family don't trace any ancestyr back to the
> alleged killer, Richard. So personally I cans ee no logical reason
> for the refusal other than a rather bolshy notion of not disturbing
> their rest. Which is hardly a viable reason.
> Brunhild

I wonder if they're afraid that, if these can be proved to be not the
Princes, then most people will probably stop assuming Richard
murdered them. So then many more people would start to either suspect
their own ancestor Henry T., or wonder if they survived incognito -
in which case probably there are living descendants with a better
claim to the throne than Queen Elizabeth.
Even if these people do not know who they are, that thought could be
unsettling for the current royal family given the PR problems they've
had in the last few years.

Perhaps they really do mind about remains being disturbed.

Perhaps they're afraid they may be late 15th century, but both two
years older than Tanner & Wright suggested. (Personally I think this
unlikely.)

Anyway, that's my lot until Monday. Off to Barcelona.

Marie


> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >

I have been having major problems signing into Yahoo having had to change my password 3 times, and have missed previous postings for this week, could
sks assist want to go back to Sunday of last week.

Can anyone help?

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In > >
> >
> I have also been to Minster Lovell and it is, indeed, lovely. But I
> seem to recall another explanation for the alleged skeleton found
> there (or not), namely a game of hide and seek on a wedding day
that
> went hideously wrong when the bride (I think) hid in a trunk and
> couldn't get out and no-one found her...They can't have looked very
> hard and didn't she consider banging?

Yes, that's the 'Mistletoe Bough' story I mentioned. In fact, it was
am oak chest the bride was supposed to have hidden in. Unfortunately,
that song was written in the 1880s and, although the groom is called
Lord Lovell, it's set in an unnamed castle. I have a small booklet
Freancis Lovell which says the song goes back to the 17th century and
so predates the Lord Lovell in the sealed room story. Problem, is
that booklet doesn't explain that claim. The song known now was
definitely 1880s and the composer is known. Given thew sort of
subject-matter it's likely he based it on an older tale or folksong.
But ya'd need to know whether the 17th version of that mentioned the
name Lovell.




Certainly the proliferation of
> similar, variant tales makes one roll one's eyes in despair of ever
> finding the truth until they allow DNA tests. Heavens, what if they
> do tests and find the abbey urn contains two chimps from the Tower
> menagerie? I don't see that the Crown has anything to lose by
> allowing it, since if they are definitely NOT the princes it hardly
> casts a bad light on anyone as such a mistake would be entirely
> reasonable in the circumstances and it was a long time ago. Would
> they have a problem if they were found definitely to be the boys
> then? I can't see why they should since they are currently assumed
> to eb so, and the family don't trace any ancestyr back to the
> alleged killer, Richard. So personally I cans ee no logical reason
> for the refusal other than a rather bolshy notion of not disturbing
> their rest. Which is hardly a viable reason.
> Brunhild

I wonder if they're afraid that, if these can be proved to be not the
Princes, then most people will probably stop assuming Richard
murdered them. So then many more people would start to either suspect
their own ancestor Henry T., or wonder if they survived incognito -
in which case probably there are living descendants with a better
claim to the throne than Queen Elizabeth.
Even if these people do not know who they are, that thought could be
unsettling for the current royal family given the PR problems they've
had in the last few years.

Perhaps they really do mind about remains being disturbed.

Perhaps they're afraid they may be late 15th century, but both two
years older than Tanner & Wright suggested. (Personally I think this
unlikely.)

Anyway, that's my lot until Monday. Off to Barcelona.

Marie


> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

>
> I wonder if they're afraid that, if these can be proved to be not
the
> Princes, then most people will probably stop assuming Richard
> murdered them. So then many more people would start to either
suspect
> their own ancestor Henry T., or wonder if they survived incognito -

> in which case probably there are living descendants with a better
> claim to the throne than Queen Elizabeth.
> Even if these people do not know who they are, that thought could
be
> unsettling for the current royal family given the PR problems
they've
> had in the last few years.
>
> Perhaps they really do mind about remains being disturbed.
>
> Perhaps they're afraid they may be late 15th century, but both two
> years older than Tanner & Wright suggested. (Personally I think
this
> unlikely.)
>
> Anyway, that's my lot until Monday. Off to Barcelona.
>
> Marie
>
>
> > >

Enjoy! Apologies for the typos - I don't THINK I was drunk when I
wrote it, must have been very tired! I recently painted a doorway
from Wardour castle and smiled on discovering it was built (the
door, not necessarily the whole castle!) by Lord Lovell - "our"
boy's grandfather, I think.
Brunhild
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >