King Edward's bones

I was struck by a passage in the recent biography of "Æthelred
the Unready: the ill-counselled king" by Anne Williams.
Speaking of the death of his predecessor, St Edward the Martyr (king
975-8), she remarks:

"The bones discovered at Shaftesbury in 1931 were originally
identified as those of Edward, but subsequent re-examination, while
confirming that they are of approximately the correct date, suggests
a man in his late twenties or early thirties, rather than a youth in
his mid teens."

An interesting precedent?

Eric wrote: "The bones discovered at Shaftesbury in
1931 were originally
identified as those of Edward, but subsequent
re-examination, while
confirming that they are of approximately the correct
date, suggests
a man in his late twenties or early thirties, rather
than a youth in
his mid teens."

An interesting precedent?

***

I think so. I don't know of any other bones whose
identity has been changed by further research, but it
would make an interesting study.

Does anyone else know of cases where the identity of
bones has been proven inaccurate?

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

I almost hate to bring it up again, but as bones are being discussed..
I read in the papers that some bones believed to be those of King Harold,
are to be dug up and tested for dna with two men who claim descent from the
Godwins. Well covered in the papers, but no screams about disturbing Œroyal
bones¹ from Westminster of the Palace. Wonder why in view of their reaction
to requests for similar tests on certain other bones?:-)
Paul

> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:22:03 -0800 (PST)
> To:
> Subject: RE: King Edward's bones
>
> Eric wrote: "The bones discovered at Shaftesbury in
> 1931 were originally
> identified as those of Edward, but subsequent
> re-examination, while
> confirming that they are of approximately the correct
> date, suggests
> a man in his late twenties or early thirties, rather
> than a youth in
> his mid teens."
>
> An interesting precedent?
>
> ***
>
> I think so. I don't know of any other bones whose
> identity has been changed by further research, but it
> would make an interesting study.
>
> Does anyone else know of cases where the identity of
> bones has been proven inaccurate?
>
> Marion
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>
> 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/
>
>

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I almost hate to bring it up again, but as bones are being
discussed..
> I read in the papers that some bones believed to be those of King
Harold,
> are to be dug up and tested for dna with two men who claim descent
from the
> Godwins. Well covered in the papers, but no screams about
disturbing Œroyal
> bones¹ from Westminster of the Palace. Wonder why in view of their
reaction
> to requests for similar tests on certain other bones?:-)
> Paul

This caught my attention when it landed in my mailbox, so I went
searching for a news report, and found one online from the BBC at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/3231020.s
tm

(I hope the URL doesn't wrap -- if it does, you'll have to cut and
paste into your browser window)

I suspect that part of the difference lies in the fact that
permission here comes from the Chichester Diocese Consistory Court
rather than the Dean of the Abbey. I don't know how many tourists go
to the church in Bosham, West Sussex, but I suspect the degree to
which the ecclesiastical powers-that-be find tourism getting in the
way of their ministry has something to do with their positions on
such matters. My impression from visiting Westminster Abbey on a July
day is that the tourist:worshipper ratio is about 10,000:1.

I suspect that the most practical course for Ricardians would be to
watch and see how this plays out, and then adjust tactics as new
precedent may warrant.

--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > I almost hate to bring it up again, but as bones are being
> discussed..
> > I read in the papers that some bones believed to be those of King
> Harold,
> > are to be dug up

Sorry to post twice, but I want to make sure that no one is left with
a misconception from an apparent error of fact in Paul's earlier
posting.

According to the BBC report, the historians who'd like to dig up
those bones haven't gotten permission yet. We don't yet know
that "they are to be dug up" and indeed they may not be. While it's
possible that the historians may get that permission, it's a bit
premature to compare this case with that of those other bones in
Westminster Abbey.

When including a link in a post to an email group, I find it helpful to run
it through either http://www.makeashorterlink.com or http://www.tinyurl.com
. These reduce long URL's that otherwise have a good chance of not working
to short, practical length.

Bob Waters


At 07:12 AM 11/24/2003, you wrote:
>--- In , "P.T.Bale"
><paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > I almost hate to bring it up again, but as bones are being
>discussed..
> > I read in the papers that some bones believed to be those of King
>Harold,
> > are to be dug up and tested for dna with two men who claim descent
>from the
> > Godwins. Well covered in the papers, but no screams about
>disturbing Œroyal
> > bones¹ from Westminster of the Palace. Wonder why in view of their
>reaction
> > to requests for similar tests on certain other bones?:-)
> > Paul
>
>This caught my attention when it landed in my mailbox, so I went
>searching for a news report, and found one online from the BBC at
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/3231020.s>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/3231020.s
>tm
>
>(I hope the URL doesn't wrap -- if it does, you'll have to cut and
>paste into your browser window)
>
>I suspect that part of the difference lies in the fact that
>permission here comes from the Chichester Diocese Consistory Court
>rather than the Dean of the Abbey. I don't know how many tourists go
>to the church in Bosham, West Sussex, but I suspect the degree to
>which the ecclesiastical powers-that-be find tourism getting in the
>way of their ministry has something to do with their positions on
>such matters. My impression from visiting Westminster Abbey on a July
>day is that the tourist:worshipper ratio is about 10,000:1.
>
>I suspect that the most practical course for Ricardians would be to
>watch and see how this plays out, and then adjust tactics as new
>precedent may warrant.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cpmt5s1/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705297333:HM/EXP=1069765948/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
>[]
>
>[]
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Eric wrote: "The bones discovered at Shaftesbury in
> 1931 were originally
> identified as those of Edward, but subsequent
> re-examination, while
> confirming that they are of approximately the correct
> date, suggests
> a man in his late twenties or early thirties, rather
> than a youth in
> his mid teens."
>
> An interesting precedent?
>
> ***
>
> I think so. I don't know of any other bones whose
> identity has been changed by further research, but it
> would make an interesting study.

Please Miss, I saw one recently on TV. Apparently an archaeologist
(female, of course... ) had a hunch, regarding the mysterious Pharaoh
Smenkhare, the man who came between Akhenaton and Tutankhamun, was
failing to get said idea accepted, and so had the mummy unwrapped and
examined properly.

Smenkhare was a woman. . . .
The features match those of Akhenaton's queen Nefertiti - which is
what said archaeologist expected. Apparently Nefertiti's fate has
never been known.
I looked in a book I have on the period next day, and read that
Nefertiti had herself earlier used the title Smenkhare (exalted in Ra
or something). Obvious, really.
But that's what happens (or doesn't happen) when historians get a
mindset through their own earlier reading/ conventional view, and
lose the ability to 'think outside the box'.

Marie

>>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

I told it the way the news reported it to me at the time. But I can always
trust someone to accuse me of spreading Œerrors of fact¹ :-) even when
rpeated by mistake.
But let¹s not get our knickers in a twist yet.
I thought it interesting that¹s all.



> From: "Laura Blanchard" <lblanchard@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:41:42 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: King Edward's bones
>
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
>> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>> I almost hate to bring it up again, but as bones are being
>> discussed..
>>> I read in the papers that some bones believed to be those of King
>> Harold,
>>> are to be dug up
>
> Sorry to post twice, but I want to make sure that no one is left with
> a misconception from an apparent error of fact in Paul's earlier
> posting.
>
> According to the BBC report, the historians who'd like to dig up
> those bones haven't gotten permission yet. We don't yet know
> that "they are to be dug up" and indeed they may not be. While it's
> possible that the historians may get that permission, it's a bit
> premature to compare this case with that of those other bones in
> Westminster Abbey.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I told it the way the news reported it to me at the time. But I can
always
> trust someone to accuse me of spreading ?errors of fact¹ :-) even when
> rpeated by mistake.

Apparent error of fact, Paul, apparent error of fact. I don't trust
the BBC to get things right, either (*smile*). As for accusations:
well, it's a fact that the BBC report doesn't match yours. I leave it
for wiser heads to puzzle out where the error lies.

But if the BBC is correct and the historians don't have permission to
open the tomb, we can't say much about 'screams' from the royals (your
term, I think), or lack thereof.

> But let¹s not get our knickers in a twist yet.
> I thought it interesting that¹s all.
>


Well, I do, too. I just want to make sure no one things they're
blithely digging up bones in West Sussex while the Queen and the Dean
keep us out of the urn.

> > I think so. I don't know of any other bones whose
> > identity has been changed by further research, but it
> > would make an interesting study.
>
> Please Miss, I saw one recently on TV. Apparently an
> archaeologist (female, of course... ) had a hunch, regarding
> the mysterious Pharaoh Smenkhare, the man who came
> between Akhenaton and Tutankhamun, was failing to get
> said idea accepted, and so had the mummy unwrapped and
> examined properly.
>
> Smenkhare was a woman. . . .


Ann:
I missed actually seeing the much-heralded show, but if this was Dr. Joann Fletcher, her contention was that a mummy known as the Elder Lady from KV35, first examined by Grafton Elliott Smith, was actually Nefertiti. Not that the KV55 remains were.

http://www.egyptology.com/news&gossip/

A recent examination of the remains from KV55 (thought to be Smenkhare) discussed in a KMT article (Spring 2003, I think), concludes that the pelvis is that of a man.

At this time the Egyptian government is unwilling to consent to DNA testing on mummies, which should provide final answers at least to questions of sex (not sure DNA as presently done could provide positive answers on identification and relationships, except to exclude certain identifications and theories).

L.P.H.,

Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm

I was tempted to give him a hard poke with my parasol, but he prudently stayed at a distance.
CHILDREN OF THE STORM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , "Sharp, Ann"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> > > I think so. I don't know of any other bones whose
> > > identity has been changed by further research, but it
> > > would make an interesting study.
> >
> > Please Miss, I saw one recently on TV. Apparently an
> > archaeologist (female, of course... ) had a hunch, regarding
> > the mysterious Pharaoh Smenkhare, the man who came
> > between Akhenaton and Tutankhamun, was failing to get
> > said idea accepted, and so had the mummy unwrapped and
> > examined properly.
> >
> > Smenkhare was a woman. . . .
>
>
> Ann:
> I missed actually seeing the much-heralded show, but if this
was Dr. Joann Fletcher, her contention was that a mummy known as the
Elder Lady from KV35, first examined by Grafton Elliott Smith, was
actually Nefertiti. Not that the KV55 remains were.

No, this programme was definitely out to prove that Smenkhare was
Nefertiti.

Marie

>

Bryn asked: Before I go popping up in your inbox
unannounced and unwanted, would it
be all right to answer via email since I don't want to
wander any farther on the list than I have already
from the 15th Century?

***

Would you mind including phaecilia@... in your
answer?

I'm the one who asked for other examples of
misidentified bones.

I didn't limit the question to 15th c. England,
because I don't know much about the subject. I'd just
like to know more about it from any era.

TIA!

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Bryn asked: Before I go popping up in your inbox
> unannounced and unwanted, would it
> be all right to answer via email since I don't want to
> wander any farther on the list than I have already
> from the 15th Century?
>
> ***
>
> Would you mind including phaecilia@y... in your
> answer?
>
> I'm the one who asked for other examples of
> misidentified bones.
>
> I didn't limit the question to 15th c. England,
> because I don't know much about the subject. I'd just
> like to know more about it from any era.
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

Yes, all I was doing was putting that one in in response to the
request, taking the programme at face value because I knew no
different. I'm not defending a position on it other than on reporting
what was in the programme to others who may know far more than myself
about the subject but didn't see it. (However, it woukd be nice if it
turned out to be true.)
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

Marion:
> > I'm the one who asked for other examples of
> > misidentified bones.
> >
> > I didn't limit the question to 15th c. England,

Ann:
[who will not carry on this far off-subject unless tempted beyond her
strength]

Egyptian mummies have been subjected to grave robbing from ancient
times, first for valuables buried with them, later because "mummy"
was a pharmacy ingredient. And then came the archeologists. Some
mummies were lucky enough to be reburied and not found until modern
times, but identification of them is frequently questioned,
especially if the mummy was found with, say, a label lying on it, but
not affixed to it, in the hand of an ancient scribe. Did the
reburial party know who the individual mummies were? We'll never
know. Can a DNA test identify an ancient Egyptian? Not sure. At
the current stage of development, I would say that a DNA profile
could say that Mummy X and Mummy Y have some percentage of
similarity, BUT, even if we say that their Y-chromosomes are
identical, can we tell, for instance, which is the father and which
the son? And with some generations of sibling marriage, the gene
pool is even more restricted in terms of Y-chromosomes and mtDNA.

Interesting article on analyzing the various dockets (labels) is at
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/subpages1/dockets.htm.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Marie wrote: But that's what happens (or doesn't
happen) when historians get a mindset through their
own earlier reading/ conventional view, and
lose the ability to 'think outside the box'.

***

Your comment reminds me of something I've been mulling
over for quite awhile.

It seems to me that the wooden chest that held the
bones found in the Tower in 1674 might provide
evidence that the bones couldn't have been buried as
early as 1485.

I've been looking for a formula for the rate of decay
of wood buried in the ground. But I haven't succeeded
in finding one.

If there's a generally accepted formula for the rate
of decay of softwood (pine) and hardwood (oak) buried
in conditions that existed in the Tower between 1483
and 1674, then it could be possible to establish that
the bones weren't buried by Richard's supporters. If
wood decays in less than 189 years under conditions
that existed in the Tower, then the chest of bones had
to be buried in the Tudor era or later. If the chest
was buried after 1485, then Richard and his supporters
can't be responsible for it or the bones it contained.

I can't remember seeing this discussed in any of the
reading I've done about the bones so far.

Does anyone on the list know where to find a formula
for the rate of decay of buried wood?

Or has anyone seen articles or books that discuss this
idea?

***

Marie wrote: I was, however, speaking to an
archaelogist (though not an Egyptologist) lately, who
told me quite bluntly that honour amongst
colleagues means the profession will publicly reject
evidence that overturns existing theories until those
who have built their reputations on said existing
theories have passed on. So it's very hard for the
general public to know what they really believe.

***

Is it possible for you to ask this archaeologist
whether archaeologists use generally accepted formulas
for rates of decay for wood in thier work? Could this
archaeologist tell you anything that might apply to
the wooden chest that held the bones attributed to
Richard's nephews?

TIA!

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: But that's what happens (or doesn't
> happen) when historians get a mindset through their
> own earlier reading/ conventional view, and
> lose the ability to 'think outside the box'.
>
> ***
>
> Your comment reminds me of something I've been mulling
> over for quite awhile.
>
> It seems to me that the wooden chest that held the
> bones found in the Tower in 1674 might provide
> evidence that the bones couldn't have been buried as
> early as 1485.
>
> I've been looking for a formula for the rate of decay
> of wood buried in the ground. But I haven't succeeded
> in finding one.
>
> If there's a generally accepted formula for the rate
> of decay of softwood (pine) and hardwood (oak) buried
> in conditions that existed in the Tower between 1483
> and 1674, then it could be possible to establish that
> the bones weren't buried by Richard's supporters. If
> wood decays in less than 189 years under conditions
> that existed in the Tower, then the chest of bones had
> to be buried in the Tudor era or later. If the chest
> was buried after 1485, then Richard and his supporters
> can't be responsible for it or the bones it contained.
>
> I can't remember seeing this discussed in any of the
> reading I've done about the bones so far.
>
> Does anyone on the list know where to find a formula
> for the rate of decay of buried wood?
>
> Or has anyone seen articles or books that discuss this
> idea?
>
> ***
>
> Marie wrote: I was, however, speaking to an
> archaelogist (though not an Egyptologist) lately, who
> told me quite bluntly that honour amongst
> colleagues means the profession will publicly reject
> evidence that overturns existing theories until those
> who have built their reputations on said existing
> theories have passed on. So it's very hard for the
> general public to know what they really believe.
>
> ***
>
> Is it possible for you to ask this archaeologist
> whether archaeologists use generally accepted formulas
> for rates of decay for wood in thier work? Could this
> archaeologist tell you anything that might apply to
> the wooden chest that held the bones attributed to
> Richard's nephews?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

Do we have any chest to examine? Or are we dependent on the
contemporary reports of the not-eye-witnesses brought up on More for
presence of same? Anybody know?

Marie
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

Ann wrote: "... Some mummies were lucky enough to be
reburied and not found until modern times, but
identification of them is frequently questioned. ...
Did the reburial party know who the individual mummies
were? We'll never know. Can a DNA test identify an
ancient Egyptian? Not sure."

***

This sounds reasonable to me.

I asked for other examples of misidentified bones in
hopes of getting a sense of how much uncertainty and
disagreement exists.

It seems to me that a high degree of caution and
uncertainty ought to exist, and that early
identifications should be provisional, without penalty
to those whose early efforts are disproven by later
evidence.

I'm doubtful that the bones found in the wooden chest
in the Tower in 1674 belonged to Richard's nephews,
because the folks who make those claims seem to be too
certain of it. They don't seem to allow for the
difficulties that exist in identifying bones.

(I have other reasons for doubting that those bones
belonged to Richard's nephews. But I've given them in
an earlier post)

I'd still like to see an impartial, international team
of experts do an analysis of the bones. I think it
would be an improvement on the present stalemate we're
in.

Marion






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Marie asked: Do we have any chest to examine? Or are
we dependent on the contemporary reports of the
not-eye-witnesses brought up on More for presence of
same? Anybody know?

***

I can't say for sure at the moment. I'll have to look
at my notes again.

But I think I remember that the chest and even some of
the bones were thrown on a trash heap and left there
for awhile before anyone thought about the possibility
that they could belong to Richard's nephews. Then the
bones were retrieved.

I'm not hopeful that actual samples of the chest could
be analyzed.

But if there was a generally accepted formula for the
rate of decay of buried wood, it could be possible to
say that Richard and his supporters couldn't be
responsible for the burial of that chest and those
bones, because a wooden chest would decay in less than
189 years.

Therefore Richard and his supporters couldn't be
responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

Or, if they were, his nephews weren't killed an buried
in the Tower, as traditionalists claim.

That's my theory. Will it work?

TIA!

Marion






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie asked: Do we have any chest to examine? Or are
> we dependent on the contemporary reports of the
> not-eye-witnesses brought up on More for presence of
> same? Anybody know?
>
> ***
>
> I can't say for sure at the moment. I'll have to look
> at my notes again.
>
> But I think I remember that the chest and even some of
> the bones were thrown on a trash heap and left there
> for awhile before anyone thought about the possibility
> that they could belong to Richard's nephews. Then the
> bones were retrieved.
>
> I'm not hopeful that actual samples of the chest could
> be analyzed.
>
> But if there was a generally accepted formula for the
> rate of decay of buried wood, it could be possible to
> say that Richard and his supporters couldn't be
> responsible for the burial of that chest and those
> bones, because a wooden chest would decay in less than
> 189 years.
>
> Therefore Richard and his supporters couldn't be
> responsible for the deaths of his nephews.
>
> Or, if they were, his nephews weren't killed an buried
> in the Tower, as traditionalists claim.
>
> That's my theory. Will it work?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

That's a good one provided you take account of:

a) Neceesary doubt over whether bones were really found in a chest or
whether they were just said to be in a chest because More said bodies
of Princes were buried in a hest

b) Differences in rate of decay in different physical conditions (ie
climate). Eg bolts of cloth from ancient Egypt can look like new
(have seen in British Museam], whilst we have only tiny decayed
scraps of velvets, etc, extant for English 15th century. Also, things
buried in soil will not last as well as those stored above ground.
Any british archaeologist (as opposed to British archaeologist)
should be able to answer.

Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

Wasn't a DNA test done on the bones that established that they were
Plantagenets? I forget whose body was used for the reference DNA, but it
was a woman, as I recall.

Bob Waters


At 06:21 PM 11/26/2003, you wrote:
>--- In , marion davis
><phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Marie asked: Do we have any chest to examine? Or are
> > we dependent on the contemporary reports of the
> > not-eye-witnesses brought up on More for presence of
> > same? Anybody know?
> >
> > ***
> >
> > I can't say for sure at the moment. I'll have to look
> > at my notes again.
> >
> > But I think I remember that the chest and even some of
> > the bones were thrown on a trash heap and left there
> > for awhile before anyone thought about the possibility
> > that they could belong to Richard's nephews. Then the
> > bones were retrieved.
> >
> > I'm not hopeful that actual samples of the chest could
> > be analyzed.
> >
> > But if there was a generally accepted formula for the
> > rate of decay of buried wood, it could be possible to
> > say that Richard and his supporters couldn't be
> > responsible for the burial of that chest and those
> > bones, because a wooden chest would decay in less than
> > 189 years.
> >
> > Therefore Richard and his supporters couldn't be
> > responsible for the deaths of his nephews.
> >
> > Or, if they were, his nephews weren't killed an buried
> > in the Tower, as traditionalists claim.
> >
> > That's my theory. Will it work?
> >
> > TIA!
> >
> > Marion
>
>That's a good one provided you take account of:
>
>a) Neceesary doubt over whether bones were really found in a chest or
>whether they were just said to be in a chest because More said bodies
>of Princes were buried in a hest
>
>b) Differences in rate of decay in different physical conditions (ie
>climate). Eg bolts of cloth from ancient Egypt can look like new
>(have seen in British Museam], whilst we have only tiny decayed
>scraps of velvets, etc, extant for English 15th century. Also, things
>buried in soil will not last as well as those stored above ground.
>Any british archaeologist (as opposed to British archaeologist)
>should be able to answer.
>
>Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >

marion davis wrote:

>But if there was a generally accepted formula for the
>rate of decay of buried wood, it could be possible to
>say that Richard and his supporters couldn't be
>responsible for the burial of that chest and those
>bones, because a wooden chest would decay in less than
>189 years.
>
>

That's a wee bit like asking how long is a bit of string. :)

Survival of organic material is pretty much decided by the matrix - not
a vastly overrated trio of films <grin> but a combination of the
material that surrounds the artefact (in this case wood) and the
climate, both local and regional with the added spice of possible
influence by natural disasters (volcanos and the like so not very likely
here!) .

Thus if the soil is acid then wood is gone in a few years, leaving
behind only discolorations (like post holes which show dark against the
surrounding soil), but there again the wood in the soggy conditions of
Flag Fen, near Peterborough, where the remains of a Bronze Age walkway
has been found, is so well preserved (and so plentiful you can take some
home with you) that they can date the planks to the year they were
felled - which rather makes your mind explode when you visit and your
guide points to a plank that had been dug up that week and tells you the
exact year the axe did it's work.

There again if there's some metal ore, salt or oil there's more to
consider - Copper for example will help preserve wood, leather and
textile and we all know salt preserves things.

And so it goes on, with factor after factor preventing the writing of
the straight forward equation you desire. So I can't see how we can know
enough about matrix of the site at the time of the find to make any such
judgement.

--
Cheers
Jan Scott
Yorkshire

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: But that's what happens (or doesn't
> happen) when historians get a mindset through their
> own earlier reading/ conventional view, and
> lose the ability to 'think outside the box'.
>
> ***
>
> Your comment reminds me of something I've been mulling
> over for quite awhile.
>
> It seems to me that the wooden chest that held the
> bones found in the Tower in 1674 might provide
> evidence that the bones couldn't have been buried as
> early as 1485.
>
> I've been looking for a formula for the rate of decay
> of wood buried in the ground. But I haven't succeeded
> in finding one.
>
> If there's a generally accepted formula for the rate
> of decay of softwood (pine) and hardwood (oak) buried
> in conditions that existed in the Tower between 1483
> and 1674, then it could be possible to establish that
> the bones weren't buried by Richard's supporters. If
> wood decays in less than 189 years under conditions
> that existed in the Tower, then the chest of bones had
> to be buried in the Tudor era or later. If the chest
> was buried after 1485, then Richard and his supporters
> can't be responsible for it or the bones it contained.
>
> I can't remember seeing this discussed in any of the
> reading I've done about the bones so far.
>
> Does anyone on the list know where to find a formula
> for the rate of decay of buried wood?
>
> Or has anyone seen articles or books that discuss this
> idea?


This s an intereting idea, but my thought has been that it is
possible that the bones were buried even earlier than Richard's time,
and that they may have been buried more than once: I was thinking of
the Roman and, separately, pre-Roman business of wall- and foundation-
sacrifices. Two walls of the White Tower align exactly with exterior
walls of the Roman fort Londinium, and it in turn may have been built
upon earlier re-Roman constructions. It seems possible to me that
individuals, possibly even children, could have been sacrificed at
some point to ensure the strength of the fortifications, and that
such bones might even have been dug up and reburied in place after
being placed in a wooden box with respect or in just-in-case
superstitious prudence. So the box and the bones could be of
different eras.

aty

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: But that's what happens (or doesn't
> happen) when historians get a mindset through their
> own earlier reading/ conventional view, and
> lose the ability to 'think outside the box'.
>
> ***
>
> Your comment reminds me of something I've been mulling
> over for quite awhile.
>
> It seems to me that the wooden chest that held the
> bones found in the Tower in 1674 might provide
> evidence that the bones couldn't have been buried as
> early as 1485.
>
> I've been looking for a formula for the rate of decay
> of wood buried in the ground. But I haven't succeeded
> in finding one.

Surely if it still exists they can do a tree ring or carbon test for
that? I didn't know it still existed. Is it certain it does?
Brunhild

> From: Bob Waters <uisgeachan@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:25:09 -0600
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: King Edward's bones
>
> Wasn't a DNA test done on the bones that established that they were
> Plantagenets? I forget whose body was used for the reference DNA, but it
> was a woman, as I recall.

Bob, the whole problem is that the bones were tested in the 30s, long before
DNA could be tested. No DNA test has ever been done, nor is likely for some
time unless the powers alter their attitude. Little is known about the
bones, not even their sex.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: Bob Waters <uisgeachan@m...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:25:09 -0600
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: King Edward's bones
> >
> > Wasn't a DNA test done on the bones that established that they
were
> > Plantagenets? I forget whose body was used for the reference DNA,
but it
> > was a woman, as I recall.
>
> Bob, the whole problem is that the bones were tested in the 30s,
long before
> DNA could be tested. No DNA test has ever been done, nor is likely
for some
> time unless the powers alter their attitude. Little is known about
the
> bones, not even their sex.
> Paul

Bob may have got this idea from the comparisons carried out in the
1990s between the Princes' bones and those of their 2nd cousin once
removed, Anne Mowbray (ie one set of Anne's great-great-grandparents
were also great-grandparents to the Princes. The expert concerned
claims to have identified the same abnormality in the dentition of
Anne Mowbray and one of the skulls in the urn. These comparisons were
made using the X-rays taken during the 1930s investigations, and
involved no access to the bones themselves and therefore no DNA test.
I don't know the science, and can't comment on how definitive it is
possible to be with mere pictures of very old and knocked-about bones
as to what was an abnormality present in life and what may be due to
damage in the afterlife, so to speak. And you can probably work out
the percentage of genes the Princes are likely to have shared with
Anne for yourself. But anyway we certainly have no scientific proof
that these bones are of Plantagenets.
Marie

P.T.Bale wrote:

>
>
> > From: Bob Waters <uisgeachan@...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:25:09 -0600
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: King Edward's bones
> >
> > Wasn't a DNA test done on the bones that established that they were
> > Plantagenets? I forget whose body was used for the reference DNA, but it
> > was a woman, as I recall.
>
> Bob, the whole problem is that the bones were tested in the 30s, long
> before
> DNA could be tested. No DNA test has ever been done, nor is likely for
> some
> time unless the powers alter their attitude. Little is known about the
> bones, not even their sex.
> Paul

I was referring to something considerably more recent, which I'm sure I
read about in TIME or Newsweek perhaps 20 years ago. If I can find more
information, I'll pass it on. It certainly seems that I misunderstood
something about that article, but I can't imagine how I went that
drastically wrong. I'm curious to find out.

Bob Waters

mariewalsh2003 wrote:--- In ,
"P.T.Bale"

> Bob may have got this idea from the comparisons carried out in the
> 1990s between the Princes' bones and those of their 2nd cousin once
> removed, Anne Mowbray (ie one set of Anne's great-great-grandparents
> were also great-grandparents to the Princes. The expert concerned
> claims to have identified the same abnormality in the dentition of
> Anne Mowbray and one of the skulls in the urn. These comparisons were
> made using the X-rays taken during the 1930s investigations, and
> involved no access to the bones themselves and therefore no DNA test.
> I don't know the science, and can't comment on how definitive it is
> possible to be with mere pictures of very old and knocked-about bones
> as to what was an abnormality present in life and what may be due to
> damage in the afterlife, so to speak. And you can probably work out
> the percentage of genes the Princes are likely to have shared with
> Anne for yourself. But anyway we certainly have no scientific proof
> that these bones are of Plantagenets.
> Marie

Bingo! That is exactly where I got the idea. The name Anne Mowbray was
even rattling around in my mind, but I wasn't absolutely sure. Thanks
for clearing that up, Marie.

Bob

Thanks to everyone who responded to my theory about
rates of wood decay. It looks like it won't lead to a
convincing proof that the bones in the urn can't
belong to Richard's nephews. But I thought it was
worth a try.

***

Marie wrote: That's a good [theory] provided you take
account of:

a) necessary doubt over whether bones were really
found in a chest or whether they were just said to be
in a chest becasue More said bodies of Princes were
buried in a chest

***

I've re-read my books and article at home. John
Knight, Principle Surgeon to Charles II is called an
eye witness in Isold Wigram's article, "Were the
Princes Murdered in the Tower?" But I'm not sure he
witnessed the actual finding and unburial of the
bones.

Wigram's quote of Knight's report says: "...about Ten
Feet in the ground were found the Bones of Two
Striplings in (as it seemed) a Wooden Chest..."

"(as it seemed)" suggests that Knight has doubts about
whether the bones were in the wooden chest. I'm not
sure if that's because he only saw pieces of wood
around the bones rather than an intact wooden chest
with bones inside; or if that's because he only heard
about bones inside the chest from the workmen who dug
them up.

How likely were the workmen who dug up the bones to
think right away of More's story? Was More's story
well-known among working people?

My re-reading brought up more uncertainties about
eye-witnesses and sources, which I'll save for my
posts about questions for A. Weir.

***

Jan wrote: And so it goes on, with factor after factor
preventing the writing of the straight forward
equation you desire. So I can't see how we can know
enough about matrix of the site at the time of the
find to make any such judgement.

***

While I was looking for a formula, I found various
articles that demonstrate what you've said. I also
knew when I asked that my observations of fallen trees
in the transition forests of eastern North America
can't apply to the chest dug up in 1674. I was just
hoping there might be a generally accepted formula
that I hadn't found. Life is seldom as straight
forward as I'd like it to be. <G>

***

Katy wrote: "...my thought has been that it is
possible that the bones were buried even earlier than
Richard's time, and that they may have been buried
more than once ... So the box and the bones could be
of different eras."

***

I've read about the possibility that the bones were
buried in Roman times or earlier. But I haven't given
any thought to the possibility that the box and the
bones are of different eras. I need to think about
that some more.


If my theory would work, I see two benefits:

1 - It puts the responsibility for the bones on people
who lived in the Tudor era (or even later)

2 - It's easier to understand than theories that have
to account for events taking place between pre-Roman
times and Richard's.

I'd like to come up with a straightforward statement
such as: Richard III and his supporters can't be
blamed for the bones in the urn, because the chest
they were in wouldn't have lasted 189 years. That
chest of bones couldn't have been in the ground more
than [fill in the blank] years. So it had to be
buried in the Tudor era [or even later].

If it were possible to fill in those blanks, a lot of
the traditional claims against Richard should be
discredited. Anyone who's determined to hold Richard
responsible for his nephews' deaths would have to give
up the bones in the urn as evidence against him.

Marion













__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

At 07:57 AM 11/29/03 -0800, marion davis wrote:
>***
>
>I've re-read my books and article at home. John
>Knight, Principle Surgeon to Charles II is called an
>eye witness in Isold Wigram's article, "Were the
>Princes Murdered in the Tower?" But I'm not sure he
>witnessed the actual finding and unburial of the
>bones.
>
>Wigram's quote of Knight's report says: "...about Ten
>Feet in the ground were found the Bones of Two
>Striplings in (as it seemed) a Wooden Chest..."
>
>"(as it seemed)" suggests that Knight has doubts about
>whether the bones were in the wooden chest.

Might it not mean that Knight was not certain that the wooden object the
bones were found in was a chest? Does he give any information on the
dimensions or condition of the wooden object. I'm wondering if it might be
a coffin.

>How likely were the workmen who dug up the bones to
>think right away of More's story? Was More's story
>well-known among working people?

I know More never published it, perhaps realizing the bias of his primary
source, Morton. Had anyone else published the tale by the time the bones
were discovered?

>My re-reading brought up more uncertainties about
>eye-witnesses and sources, which I'll save for my
>posts about questions for A. Weir.

Let us know how it turns out.

>If it were possible to fill in those blanks, a lot of
>the traditional claims against Richard should be
>discredited. Anyone who's determined to hold Richard
>responsible for his nephews' deaths would have to give
>up the bones in the urn as evidence against him.

Even if the bones were proven to be from Richard's era, that does not prove
they are the bodies of his nephews. Even if they were proven to be of his
nephews, that does not prove Richard killed them. In fact, so far as I
know, the remains are in such a condition that cause of death cannot be
determined.

Speaking of remains, do we know where Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel are
buried? DNA tests on those remains might prove interesting.

>
> Speaking of remains, do we know where Perkin Warbeck or Lambert
Simnel are
> buried? DNA tests on those remains might prove interesting.

Perkin Warbeck was buried at Austin Friars in London. After the
Reformation, Edward VI granted Dutch Protestants use of the church.
The Dutch Church remains on the same site. It was, however, very
badly damaged during the London Blitz in 1940 and very little remains
from the medieval period. Warbeck's grave was not apparently marked,
and I have read an account that during reconstruction of the church
after the war, any bones that were found were put into a common
grave. So chances are that Warbeck's bones have been destroyed or
will be all but impossible to find.

Anyone know about Simnel?

Kellie

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Simons
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: RE: King Edward's bones


At 07:57 AM 11/29/03 -0800, marion davis wrote:
>***
>
>I've re-read my books and article at home. John
>Knight, Principle Surgeon to Charles II is called an
>eye witness in Isold Wigram's article, "Were the
>Princes Murdered in the Tower?" But I'm not sure he
>witnessed the actual finding and unburial of the
>bones.
>
>Wigram's quote of Knight's report says: "...about Ten
>Feet in the ground were found the Bones of Two
>Striplings in (as it seemed) a Wooden Chest..."
>
>"(as it seemed)" suggests that Knight has doubts about
>whether the bones were in the wooden chest.

Might it not mean that Knight was not certain that the wooden object the
bones were found in was a chest? Does he give any information on the
dimensions or condition of the wooden object. I'm wondering if it might be
a coffin.

>How likely were the workmen who dug up the bones to
>think right away of More's story? Was More's story
>well-known among working people?

I know More never published it, perhaps realizing the bias of his primary
source, Morton. Had anyone else published the tale by the time the bones
were discovered?

>My re-reading brought up more uncertainties about
>eye-witnesses and sources, which I'll save for my
>posts about questions for A. Weir.

Let us know how it turns out.

>If it were possible to fill in those blanks, a lot of
>the traditional claims against Richard should be
>discredited. Anyone who's determined to hold Richard
>responsible for his nephews' deaths would have to give
>up the bones in the urn as evidence against him.

Even if the bones were proven to be from Richard's era, that does not prove
they are the bodies of his nephews. Even if they were proven to be of his
nephews, that does not prove Richard killed them. In fact, so far as I
know, the remains are in such a condition that cause of death cannot be
determined.

Exactly. DNA analysis can only help the Ricardian cause - the bones either "could be the Princes" or "cannot be". The first barely strengthens the Traditionalist case but the second blows a large hole in it - what John Virgo calls a "shot to nothing".

Speaking of remains, do we know where Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel are
buried? DNA tests on those remains might prove interesting.





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 , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of remains, do we know where Perkin Warbeck or Lambert
> Simnel are
> > buried? DNA tests on those remains might prove interesting.
>
> Perkin Warbeck was buried at Austin Friars in London. After the
> Reformation, Edward VI granted Dutch Protestants use of the church.
> The Dutch Church remains on the same site. It was, however, very
> badly damaged during the London Blitz in 1940 and very little
remains
> from the medieval period. Warbeck's grave was not apparently
marked,
> and I have read an account that during reconstruction of the church
> after the war, any bones that were found were put into a common
> grave. So chances are that Warbeck's bones have been destroyed or
> will be all but impossible to find.
>
> Anyone know about Simnel?
>
> Kellie

Ann Wroe says there is a legend that James IV had 'Perkin's' body
transferred to Cambuskenneth Abbey outside Stirling. Certainly, when
Stowe did his survey of London in Elizabeth's reign Prkin's name was
not to be found on any of the memorials in the Austin Friars.

I think Simnel's resting place is probably unknown. There is a record
of his attendance at a funeral in 1525. I suspect he was buried in
London or Westminster as there were Simnels there later in the
century. If after 1538, then burial registers may hold the record.
However, that is still a long way from identifying the body. Ordinary
people in those days had no memorials.

Marie

--- In , "Stephen LARK" <>
>I've re-read my books and article at home. John
> >Knight, Principle Surgeon to Charles II is called an
> >eye witness in Isold Wigram's article, "Were the
> >Princes Murdered in the Tower?" But I'm not sure he
> >witnessed the actual finding and unburial of the
> >bones.
> >
> >Wigram's quote of Knight's report says: "...about Ten
> >Feet in the ground were found the Bones of Two
> >Striplings in (as it seemed) a Wooden Chest..."
> >
> >"(as it seemed)" suggests that Knight has doubts about
> >whether the bones were in the wooden chest.
>
> Might it not mean that Knight was not certain that the wooden
object the
> bones were found in was a chest? Does he give any information on
the
> dimensions or condition of the wooden object. I'm wondering if
it might be
> a coffin.
>
> >How likely were the workmen who dug up the bones to
> >think right away of More's story? Was More's story
> >well-known among working people?

I posted a message earlier that would answer these questions in
detail: "Re Sealed-up Princes", 17th September. It quotes all the
conremporary accounts of the find, plus earlier "finds", from
articles in the Ricardian by Helen Maurer. You can find by going on
the site itself and doing a search. Type in Charles II and it'll come
up as one of the possibilities.


It seems to me that there is no chest. The workmen thought nothing of
finding the bones and tossed them on the rubbish. Then they were made
to retrieve them, which they did (apparently getting them confused in
the process with bones from the leftovers of their own dinners). They
were not asked to retrieve anything else, so unless by chance there
are fragments of wood in the urn, there is nothing left of any chest,
even supposing there ever were one. And if there is wood in the urn,
we can't know whether it belonged to the chest or something else
thrown on to the rubbish heap.
Sorry.

Marie

Stephen LARK wrote:

> Even if the bones were proven to be from Richard's era, that does
not prove
> they are the bodies of his nephews. Even if they were proven to be
of his
> nephews, that does not prove Richard killed them. In fact, so far as I
> know, the remains are in such a condition that cause of death cannot be
> determined.
>
> Exactly. DNA analysis can only help the Ricardian cause - the bones
either "could be the Princes" or "cannot be". The first barely
strengthens the Traditionalist case but the second blows a large hole in
it - what John Virgo calls a "shot to nothing".
>
>
>

I've never quite followed the logic here. The truth is the bones prove
nothing one way or another.

If (as may well be the case) the bones are nothing to do with the
Princes it proves nothing at all. It certainly blows no holes anywhere.
No one ever said the Princes were buried where they were found (read
More again - he says they were moved) and all you could prove is the
bones are not who Charles declared them to be for his own political
purposes. So what?

The only theory "shot to nothing" is those who prefer the "lads sent
away and killed by no-one" if they were found to be the Princes, it
certainly will never prove who killed them, or indeed if they died
innocently, or exactly when. (In case you've all forgotten carbon dating
is very inaccurate indeed and certainly doesn't pin-point to a
particular year).

And that presupposes that these remains have not been so compromised
that they can provide the DNA required.

All the time wasted on that stupid urn has done is upset the Church
authorities so much that when they didn't allow a remembrance service
for Richard to be held was that related?

Move on. It's not in bones that the answer will be found but in
documents. Dry wills, dusty letters, remote archives - not romantic, or
like an episode of CSI but the real treasure here.

But then I've always found the whole "who killed them" to be the least
interesting question of the whole period. I blame certain romantic
novels, who make various characters (including but not only Richard) to
be such saints they wouldn't have survived 10 minutes in the real court.
Hastings for example - why is he always seen as "a good bloke" when he's
far more of a social climber than the Woodvilles ever were?

--
Cheers
Jan Scott
Yorkshire

>
> I've never quite followed the logic here. The truth is the bones
prove
> nothing one way or another.
>
> If (as may well be the case) the bones are nothing to do with the
> Princes it proves nothing at all. It certainly blows no holes
anywhere.
> No one ever said the Princes were buried where they were found
(read
> More again - he says they were moved) and all you could prove is
the
> bones are not who Charles declared them to be for his own political
> purposes. So what?
>
> The only theory "shot to nothing" is those who prefer the "lads
sent
> away and killed by no-one" if they were found to be the Princes, it
> certainly will never prove who killed them, or indeed if they died
> innocently, or exactly when. (In case you've all forgotten carbon
dating
> is very inaccurate indeed and certainly doesn't pin-point to a
> particular year).

No it will not, but it will at least prevent thse claiming that the
bones per se prove Richard's guilt. There is unlikely to be any way
in which the truth can be proven one way or another, but by at least
disproving something it cuts down the options, which helps. If these
are not the boys at least we knoiw it is not proven that they died
as boys in 1483 (though it doesn't prove anything about that did
happen) and it also proves that More is not to be taken as gospel.
>
> And that presupposes that these remains have not been so
compromised
> that they can provide the DNA required.

Which they probably have, but it is still worth a try. At least if
they were proven to be them we would know that Simnel and Warbeck
were indeed fakes. If it showed they were not then it leaves these
candidates intact as possible genuine cases. (However unlikely that
might seem.)
>
> All the time wasted on that stupid urn has done is upset the Church
> authorities so much that when they didn't allow a remembrance
service
> for Richard to be held was that related?

Why should it be? Are remembrance services held for any other
king/queen? If not, they would argue that there is no reason to
single out Richard for special treatment.
>
> Move on. It's not in bones that the answer will be found but in
> documents. Dry wills, dusty letters, remote archives - not
romantic, or
> like an episode of CSI but the real treasure here.

Unfortunately the documents are difficult to trust, and the
opponents will invariably cast doubt on whatever source is produced,
be it for or against Richard. Documents and traditions which support
Richard's innocence are decried as useless by opponents, and those
against are Tudor propaganda by Ricardians. No win situation. And it
is hardly the kind of event likely to be recorded in wills etc. The
one document we could find valuable is Tyrrell's confession, but
since it is known that was only produced after his death can not be
regarded as reliable either.
>
> But then I've always found the whole "who killed them" to be the
least
> interesting question of the whole period. I blame certain romantic
> novels, who make various characters (including but not only
Richard) to
> be such saints they wouldn't have survived 10 minutes in the real
court.

Heney VI was indubitably a saintly type yet he survived rather
longer than 10 minutes, and had it not been for his wife and the
Beauforts may have survived to reign to natural death. Athelstan,
Alfred the Great and a whole plethora of others can't be considered
less than men of excellent character and they survived. It's a
little too simplistic to decide that only rather wicked and grasping
men can make it. Besides, that is disregarding the fact that a man
may be essentially wholly virtuous but in exceptional circumstances
may do something reprehensible, driven by necessity.

> Hastings for example - why is he always seen as "a good bloke"
when he's
> far more of a social climber than the Woodvilles ever were?

There are sufficient documents which suggest Hastings was not
regarded quite as a "good bloke" to discount that one. He was a
social climber along with everyone else at court, but he was utterly
loyal to Edward. Therein lies his saving grace. (Personally I don't
think he has any others.) Show me one 15th or 16thC noble who was
not out to increase his power, prestige and patronage and I will
show you a hundred who weren't. Such an animal doesn't exist, even
if the aggrandizement remains on the small scale of acquiring an
heiress to marry or a wardship to hold. There is no such animal, I
assure you. Besides, not all historians accept that the Woodvilles
were universally loathed and decried, or that they feuded with
Richard. While I don't accept the latter I don't have a huge problem
with the former, especially as it is a known fact that the English
nobility dies out at a rate of 25% per quarter century. They have to
be replaced somehow, and there is nothing unusual about nobility
beoing recruited from gentry. Look at the De la Poles, the
Despensers/Spensers, the Villiers and any number of other similar
examples of noveau ennobled, including the Beauforts and Tudors
themselves.
Brunhild
> --
> Cheers
> Jan Scott
> Yorkshire

At 01:47 PM 11/30/03 +0000, Jan Scott wrote:
>Stephen LARK wrote:
>
> > Exactly. DNA analysis can only help the Ricardian cause - the bones
>either "could be the Princes" or "cannot be". The first barely
>strengthens the Traditionalist case but the second blows a large hole in
>it - what John Virgo calls a "shot to nothing".
> >
>
>I've never quite followed the logic here. The truth is the bones prove
>nothing one way or another.
>
>If (as may well be the case) the bones are nothing to do with the
>Princes it proves nothing at all. It certainly blows no holes anywhere.

That was one of my points, though you expressed it a bit more bluntly. If
the bodies are dated to Richard's era or even proven to be those of his
nephews that neither proves nor disproves that Richard (or anyone else)
killed them). If the bodies are proven to be from a different era or to
belong to someone other than Richard's nephews, that doesn't prove that
they survived Richard's reign or that he is innocent of their deaths.

>No one ever said the Princes were buried where they were found (read
>More again - he says they were moved)

Agreed, but many people point to More to back their claim that these bodies
prove that Richard killed his nephews.

>The only theory "shot to nothing" is those who prefer the "lads sent
>away and killed by no-one" if they were found to be the Princes, it
>certainly will never prove who killed them, or indeed if they died
>innocently, or exactly when.

Agreed on all points.

>And that presupposes that these remains have not been so compromised
>that they can provide the DNA required.

That would be a definite stumbling block to DNA testing. Proper
examination by forensic pathologists might at least provide the age and
gender of the bodies, but likely little else, considering the lack of care
shown the remains when they were dug up and then discarded.

That's why I was hoping that the remains of Warbeck and/or Simnel could be
found. If proper DNA testing could be done on them, it would answer a
large number of questions.

>But then I've always found the whole "who killed them" to be the least
>interesting question of the whole period.

I suspect you are in a minority on this list, then.

I am rather curious what you consider the more interesting questions of the
period.

>I blame certain romantic novels, who make various characters (including
but not
>only Richard) to be such saints they wouldn't have survived 10 minutes in
the
>real court.

There's a noted tendency with history or biography to demonize or deify
people. I suspect the way the Tudors portrayed Richard III has led some of
his supporters to an opposite extreme. I personally find both Richard and
Henry more interesting when they're portrayed as people with human
strengths and weaknesses, instead of characters in a melodrama.

Quite. The "bones in the chest" are a key part of the prosecution case in the eyes of traditionalists and the public at large. A DNA test proving them to be from animals, adults, girls, babies or commoners would nullify it.
The public at large have a view of Richard that is principally coloured by the issue of the disappearing Princes.
The next generation of history books would carry a corrected view of the evidence and the kind of student who studies no history book after fourteen would be better informed than their counterparts of today.
We have a problem with the Church and royal courtiers today, the Windsors being Henry Tudor's descendants, but this can and must be overcome in time, whilst the "evidence" remains capable of testing.
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: RE: King Edward's bones



>
> I've never quite followed the logic here. The truth is the bones
prove
> nothing one way or another.
>
> If (as may well be the case) the bones are nothing to do with the
> Princes it proves nothing at all. It certainly blows no holes
anywhere.
> No one ever said the Princes were buried where they were found
(read
> More again - he says they were moved) and all you could prove is
the
> bones are not who Charles declared them to be for his own political
> purposes. So what?
>
> The only theory "shot to nothing" is those who prefer the "lads
sent
> away and killed by no-one" if they were found to be the Princes, it
> certainly will never prove who killed them, or indeed if they died
> innocently, or exactly when. (In case you've all forgotten carbon
dating
> is very inaccurate indeed and certainly doesn't pin-point to a
> particular year).

No it will not, but it will at least prevent thse claiming that the
bones per se prove Richard's guilt. There is unlikely to be any way
in which the truth can be proven one way or another, but by at least
disproving something it cuts down the options, which helps. If these
are not the boys at least we knoiw it is not proven that they died
as boys in 1483 (though it doesn't prove anything about that did
happen) and it also proves that More is not to be taken as gospel.
>
> And that presupposes that these remains have not been so
compromised
> that they can provide the DNA required.

Which they probably have, but it is still worth a try. At least if
they were proven to be them we would know that Simnel and Warbeck
were indeed fakes. If it showed they were not then it leaves these
candidates intact as possible genuine cases. (However unlikely that
might seem.)
>
> All the time wasted on that stupid urn has done is upset the Church
> authorities so much that when they didn't allow a remembrance
service
> for Richard to be held was that related?

Why should it be? Are remembrance services held for any other
king/queen? If not, they would argue that there is no reason to
single out Richard for special treatment.
>
> Move on. It's not in bones that the answer will be found but in
> documents. Dry wills, dusty letters, remote archives - not
romantic, or
> like an episode of CSI but the real treasure here.

Unfortunately the documents are difficult to trust, and the
opponents will invariably cast doubt on whatever source is produced,
be it for or against Richard. Documents and traditions which support
Richard's innocence are decried as useless by opponents, and those
against are Tudor propaganda by Ricardians. No win situation. And it
is hardly the kind of event likely to be recorded in wills etc. The
one document we could find valuable is Tyrrell's confession, but
since it is known that was only produced after his death can not be
regarded as reliable either.
>
> But then I've always found the whole "who killed them" to be the
least
> interesting question of the whole period. I blame certain romantic
> novels, who make various characters (including but not only
Richard) to
> be such saints they wouldn't have survived 10 minutes in the real
court.

Heney VI was indubitably a saintly type yet he survived rather
longer than 10 minutes, and had it not been for his wife and the
Beauforts may have survived to reign to natural death. Athelstan,
Alfred the Great and a whole plethora of others can't be considered
less than men of excellent character and they survived. It's a
little too simplistic to decide that only rather wicked and grasping
men can make it. Besides, that is disregarding the fact that a man
may be essentially wholly virtuous but in exceptional circumstances
may do something reprehensible, driven by necessity.

> Hastings for example - why is he always seen as "a good bloke"
when he's
> far more of a social climber than the Woodvilles ever were?

There are sufficient documents which suggest Hastings was not
regarded quite as a "good bloke" to discount that one. He was a
social climber along with everyone else at court, but he was utterly
loyal to Edward. Therein lies his saving grace. (Personally I don't
think he has any others.) Show me one 15th or 16thC noble who was
not out to increase his power, prestige and patronage and I will
show you a hundred who weren't. Such an animal doesn't exist, even
if the aggrandizement remains on the small scale of acquiring an
heiress to marry or a wardship to hold. There is no such animal, I
assure you. Besides, not all historians accept that the Woodvilles
were universally loathed and decried, or that they feuded with
Richard. While I don't accept the latter I don't have a huge problem
with the former, especially as it is a known fact that the English
nobility dies out at a rate of 25% per quarter century. They have to
be replaced somehow, and there is nothing unusual about nobility
beoing recruited from gentry. Look at the De la Poles, the
Despensers/Spensers, the Villiers and any number of other similar
examples of noveau ennobled, including the Beauforts and Tudors
themselves.
Brunhild
> --
> Cheers
> Jan Scott
> Yorkshire


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



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



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

Personally I doubt the fact that the Queen is descended from Henry VII has
any bearing on a decision over whether or not she would give consent via the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster. It's unlikely that the subject has ever
been mentioned to her. The individuals concerned are the Dean and chapter
and I suspect their concern over opening up the urn has more to do with the
following - would examination of these particular remains open the
floodgates to historians and scientists wishing to examine other tombs in
the Abbey (well it would certainly set a precedence), secondly would
examination solve a historical mystery - as Jan eloquently put it it
wouldn't - if there wasn't enough for satisfactory conclusions about the age
of the bones then we would all be back where we started - to give an example
despite massive evidence dating from within days of the executions at
Ekaterinburg conspiracy theorists continued to believe for 70 years that
some or all of the Romanov's were not killed in the Ipatiev House - despite
the fact that numerous body parts were eventually recovered and reburied
there are still individuals who dispute that all the family were killed in
1918 - given the fact that two bodies probably those of the Grand Duchess
Marie and Czarevitch Alexei were not discovered - despite evidence from the
murderers that they did manage to burn two of the bodies at the time of the
burials outside Ekaterinburg.

As to correcting history books - the remains in that urn have very little
bearing on the matter - because even if you could categorically prove that
they aren't the remains of Edward V and Richard Duke of York you are still
left with the fact that they disappeared from view during Richard's brief
reign and historians will continue to discuss what that means and the
balance of probabilities is that many of them, probably the majority, will
continue to view that as highly suspicious and point the finger at Richard
of Gloucester. The fact that they disappeared is one key part of the
"prosecution" case not the contents of an urn in Westminster Abbey.

As someone who leans to the traditional side of the arguement I have never
relied on the contents of that urn for my view or opinion of Richard's guilt
or innocence. There is of course the major risk to the Ricardian view
though that if they were tested and did turn out to be the Prince's then
that would indeed scupper a few schools of Ricardian thought <g>......though
I suspect many would jump on Henry VII as the villain of the piece <g>.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen LARK" <smlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: RE: King Edward's bones


> Quite. The "bones in the chest" are a key part of the prosecution case in
the eyes of traditionalists and the public at large. A DNA test proving them
to be from animals, adults, girls, babies or commoners would nullify it.
> The public at large have a view of Richard that is principally coloured by
the issue of the disappearing Princes.
> The next generation of history books would carry a corrected view of the
evidence and the kind of student who studies no history book after fourteen
would be better informed than their counterparts of today.
> We have a problem with the Church and royal courtiers today, the Windsors
being Henry Tudor's descendants, but this can and must be overcome in time,
whilst the "evidence" remains capable of testing.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: brunhild613
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: King Edward's bones
>
>
>
> >
> > I've never quite followed the logic here. The truth is the bones
> prove
> > nothing one way or another.
> >
> > If (as may well be the case) the bones are nothing to do with the
> > Princes it proves nothing at all. It certainly blows no holes
> anywhere.
> > No one ever said the Princes were buried where they were found
> (read
> > More again - he says they were moved) and all you could prove is
> the
> > bones are not who Charles declared them to be for his own political
> > purposes. So what?
> >
> > The only theory "shot to nothing" is those who prefer the "lads
> sent
> > away and killed by no-one" if they were found to be the Princes, it
> > certainly will never prove who killed them, or indeed if they died
> > innocently, or exactly when. (In case you've all forgotten carbon
> dating
> > is very inaccurate indeed and certainly doesn't pin-point to a
> > particular year).
>
> No it will not, but it will at least prevent thse claiming that the
> bones per se prove Richard's guilt. There is unlikely to be any way
> in which the truth can be proven one way or another, but by at least
> disproving something it cuts down the options, which helps. If these
> are not the boys at least we knoiw it is not proven that they died
> as boys in 1483 (though it doesn't prove anything about that did
> happen) and it also proves that More is not to be taken as gospel.
> >
> > And that presupposes that these remains have not been so
> compromised
> > that they can provide the DNA required.
>
> Which they probably have, but it is still worth a try. At least if
> they were proven to be them we would know that Simnel and Warbeck
> were indeed fakes. If it showed they were not then it leaves these
> candidates intact as possible genuine cases. (However unlikely that
> might seem.)
> >
> > All the time wasted on that stupid urn has done is upset the Church
> > authorities so much that when they didn't allow a remembrance
> service
> > for Richard to be held was that related?
>
> Why should it be? Are remembrance services held for any other
> king/queen? If not, they would argue that there is no reason to
> single out Richard for special treatment.
> >
> > Move on. It's not in bones that the answer will be found but in
> > documents. Dry wills, dusty letters, remote archives - not
> romantic, or
> > like an episode of CSI but the real treasure here.
>
> Unfortunately the documents are difficult to trust, and the
> opponents will invariably cast doubt on whatever source is produced,
> be it for or against Richard. Documents and traditions which support
> Richard's innocence are decried as useless by opponents, and those
> against are Tudor propaganda by Ricardians. No win situation. And it
> is hardly the kind of event likely to be recorded in wills etc. The
> one document we could find valuable is Tyrrell's confession, but
> since it is known that was only produced after his death can not be
> regarded as reliable either.
> >
> > But then I've always found the whole "who killed them" to be the
> least
> > interesting question of the whole period. I blame certain romantic
> > novels, who make various characters (including but not only
> Richard) to
> > be such saints they wouldn't have survived 10 minutes in the real
> court.
>
> Heney VI was indubitably a saintly type yet he survived rather
> longer than 10 minutes, and had it not been for his wife and the
> Beauforts may have survived to reign to natural death. Athelstan,
> Alfred the Great and a whole plethora of others can't be considered
> less than men of excellent character and they survived. It's a
> little too simplistic to decide that only rather wicked and grasping
> men can make it. Besides, that is disregarding the fact that a man
> may be essentially wholly virtuous but in exceptional circumstances
> may do something reprehensible, driven by necessity.
>
> > Hastings for example - why is he always seen as "a good bloke"
> when he's
> > far more of a social climber than the Woodvilles ever were?
>
> There are sufficient documents which suggest Hastings was not
> regarded quite as a "good bloke" to discount that one. He was a
> social climber along with everyone else at court, but he was utterly
> loyal to Edward. Therein lies his saving grace. (Personally I don't
> think he has any others.) Show me one 15th or 16thC noble who was
> not out to increase his power, prestige and patronage and I will
> show you a hundred who weren't. Such an animal doesn't exist, even
> if the aggrandizement remains on the small scale of acquiring an
> heiress to marry or a wardship to hold. There is no such animal, I
> assure you. Besides, not all historians accept that the Woodvilles
> were universally loathed and decried, or that they feuded with
> Richard. While I don't accept the latter I don't have a huge problem
> with the former, especially as it is a known fact that the English
> nobility dies out at a rate of 25% per quarter century. They have to
> be replaced somehow, and there is nothing unusual about nobility
> beoing recruited from gentry. Look at the De la Poles, the
> Despensers/Spensers, the Villiers and any number of other similar
> examples of noveau ennobled, including the Beauforts and Tudors
> themselves.
> Brunhild
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Jan Scott
> > Yorkshire
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>

Hi Ed, I'm glad someone agrees with me on what the bones will (or will
not) prove - or rather I'm happy to agree with you (and Tim, or course).


Ed Simons wrote:

>I am rather curious what you consider the more interesting questions
of the
>period.
>
>

Well the real mystery of course. Just why on earth did Richard ever
trust Buckingham and give him all that power? What an amazing
misjudgement . . . :)

Okay, so that's just one (though in truth it continues to puzzle me).
Some more? Why take the throne? When did he decide? Why kill Hastings?
Why not kill more? Why did Buckingham revolt? Why did so many join in?
Why not more? Why did he lose at Bosworth? (come to think of it how did
he lose at Bosworth?). Why did people back Henry? Why did Henry VIII pay
for a memorial for Richard? . . .

And so on. Oh in there are the Princes but I just think it's not the
most important. Now what people thought happened to the Princes, how
much that altered their opinions and actions - that's important - but
the actual fate is not the most important thing to me. And sometimes it
seems all the other questions get lost in the bickering over their deaths.

--
Cheers
Jan Scott
Yorkshire

--- In , Jan Scott
<jscott@s...> wrote:
> Hi Ed, I'm glad someone agrees with me on what the bones will (or
will
> not) prove - or rather I'm happy to agree with you (and Tim, or
course).
>
>
> Ed Simons wrote:
>
> >I am rather curious what you consider the more interesting
questions
> of the
> >period.
> >
> >
>
> Well the real mystery of course. Just why on earth did Richard ever
> trust Buckingham and give him all that power? What an amazing
> misjudgement . . . :)
>
> Okay, so that's just one (though in truth it continues to puzzle
me).
> Some more? Why take the throne? When did he decide? Why kill
Hastings?
> Why not kill more? Why did Buckingham revolt? Why did so many join
in?
> Why not more? Why did he lose at Bosworth? (come to think of it how
did
> he lose at Bosworth?). Why did people back Henry? Why did Henry
VIII pay
> for a memorial for Richard? . . .
>
> And so on. Oh in there are the Princes but I just think it's not the
> most important. Now what people thought happened to the Princes, how
> much that altered their opinions and actions - that's important -
but
> the actual fate is not the most important thing to me. And
sometimes it
> seems all the other questions get lost in the bickering over their
deaths.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Jan Scott
> Yorkshire

I do agree. Sometimes I feel the forum believes it has a recent
murder case on its hands which can obviously be solved by forensic
means. The bones are hardly the equivalent of a fresh corps, with all
that it can tell. And the scene has not been properly handled from a
forensic point of view, to say the least. We don't know exactly where
they were found, whether they really were in a chest, or at what
depth they were buried. For all we know, when the workmen came to
retrieve the skeletons they found they were all smashed under the
rubble, and do procured a couple of new ones. . . We can't even be
sure these were the only human remains found during the demolition
work.
Yes, the question of the Princes is interesting, but even there it
can only be seen in context. Why did Richard take the throne? What
was he up against and why? And what was going on with the Yorkist
pretenders during Henry VII's reign? All these things have to be
looked at with regard to the Princes.
The fact is, unless we get DNA from the bones (which I personally
think is highly unlikely) AND permission to exhume the remains of
Edward IV, AND succeed in obtaining DNA from those, then we shall
never know whether these are the Princes or not.

Radio carbon dating to see whether they fall within the right time
frame is a more plausible hope. But Ricardians must be prepared for
the fact that, if they do turn out to be late medieval, then even
though that does not prove they are the Princes, or that Richard was
guilty of their murders, it will appear to do so to most punters.

I fear we might be actually falling into the trap laid by the anti-
Richard propagandists in making so much of the Princes question
ourselves. And of the testing of the bones. If we make a song and
dance about it, we risk APPEARING to admit that the outcome proves
gult or innocence.
Other monarchs with quite grisly records are well regarded, but
completely different standards are applied to Richard III. I feel
this is why those who see his good side are often tempted to portray
him as a total saint. We shouldn't have to. My experience is that the
general public think Richard was a wicked man who murdered two little
boys in order to seize their throne; BUT that all you have to do to
make them think again is give them some genuine history. Just knowing
Richard's background during Edward's reign, that there is a case to
be made for his claim to the throne, that the boys initially went to
the Tower because that is where kings awaiting their coronation were
supposed to be, and that Richard made extremely good laws, is enough
to reset most people's minds. It may be more complicated, but this is
what history is all about.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen LARK" <>
> >I've re-read my books and article at home. John
> > >Knight, Principle Surgeon to Charles II is called an
> > >eye witness in Isold Wigram's article, "Were the
> > >Princes Murdered in the Tower?" But I'm not sure he
> > >witnessed the actual finding and unburial of the
> > >bones.
> > >
> > >Wigram's quote of Knight's report says: "...about Ten
> > >Feet in the ground were found the Bones of Two
> > >Striplings in (as it seemed) a Wooden Chest..."
> > >
> > >"(as it seemed)" suggests that Knight has doubts about
> > >whether the bones were in the wooden chest.
> >
> > Might it not mean that Knight was not certain that the wooden
> object the
> > bones were found in was a chest? Does he give any information
on
> the
> > dimensions or condition of the wooden object. I'm wondering if
> it might be
> > a coffin.
> >
> > >How likely were the workmen who dug up the bones to
> > >think right away of More's story? Was More's story
> > >well-known among working people?
>
> I posted a message earlier that would answer these questions in
> detail: "Re Sealed-up Princes", 17th September. It quotes all the
> conremporary accounts of the find, plus earlier "finds", from
> articles in the Ricardian by Helen Maurer. You can find by going on
> the site itself and doing a search. Type in Charles II and it'll
come
> up as one of the possibilities.
>
>
> It seems to me that there is no chest. The workmen thought nothing
of
> finding the bones and tossed them on the rubbish. Then they were
made
> to retrieve them, which they did (apparently getting them confused
in
> the process with bones from the leftovers of their own dinners).

Despite all I've said, here I am going on about the bones again!

I have read articles which interpret the animal bones in the urn as
meal leftovers accidentally retrieved from the rubbish pile along
with the human remains - chicken bones tend to be mentioned.
BUT just received Yorkshire Branch newsletter Blanc Sanglier, which
has an article on Tanner & Wright's 1933 investigations. It seems the
animal bones in question were chicken bones AND ox bones. To my mind
this strengthens the suspicion that these bones might actually have
been deposited with the children's bodies and that what we have here
is some sort of sacrificial site. Apparently Wright himself, though
having publicly claimed to have proved the skeletons to be those of
the Princes, said as much afterwards in a private conversation to
Philip Lindsay, viz:
"They might have been, Dr. Wright said, foundation sacrifices of an
earlier date. Hence the inclusion in the chest [in which the remains
were found] of animal bones became more understandable."

Radio carbon dating would certainly nail this one.



They
> were not asked to retrieve anything else, so unless by chance there
> are fragments of wood in the urn, there is nothing left of any
chest,
> even supposing there ever were one. And if there is wood in the
urn,
> we can't know whether it belonged to the chest or something else
> thrown on to the rubbish heap.
> Sorry.
>
> Marie

> Yes, the question of the Princes is interesting, but even there it
> can only be seen in context. Why did Richard take the throne? What
> was he up against and why? And what was going on with the Yorkist
> pretenders during Henry VII's reign? All these things have to be
> looked at with regard to the Princes.

Very hard to get to understand the motivation of anyone 500 years
ago unless they have written the motives down. We can apply logic,
but humans don't always behave with logic especially when under
pressure. It doesn't help when historians make ludicrous leaps of
logic like Hicks, who us beginning from the standpoint of Richard's
guilt and is therefore every bit as erroneous as someone beginning
from the point of Richard's inocence. You simply can't start with a
theorya nd work back tomake the evidence fit it, but all too often
historians do just that. My personal view is that Richard was
reacting to what was happening around him rather than initiating
action. Whether there WAS a plot against him in 1483 is not as
important as what was perceived to be happening. Same applies to
many other events, and it's something else we often forget.

> The fact is, unless we get DNA from the bones (which I personally
> think is highly unlikely) AND permission to exhume the remains of
> Edward IV, AND succeed in obtaining DNA from those, then we shall
> never know whether these are the Princes or not.
>
> Radio carbon dating to see whether they fall within the right time
> frame is a more plausible hope. But Ricardians must be prepared
for
> the fact that, if they do turn out to be late medieval, then even
> though that does not prove they are the Princes, or that Richard
was
> guilty of their murders, it will appear to do so to most punters.

Quite, but if it proves they are not the princes it opens other
possibilities, including Richard's innocence or the fact that they
didn't die at all. Sadly it wouldn't prove any of them. But we would
have one more piece of the jigsaw.
>
> I fear we might be actually falling into the trap laid by the anti-
> Richard propagandists in making so much of the Princes question
> ourselves. And of the testing of the bones. If we make a song and
> dance about it, we risk APPEARING to admit that the outcome proves
> gult or innocence.
> Other monarchs with quite grisly records are well regarded, but
> completely different standards are applied to Richard III. I feel
> this is why those who see his good side are often tempted to
portray
> him as a total saint.

This is, for me, the most interesting question. John killed his
nephew Arthur and received castigation but no everlasting
blackening. Edward IV must have ordered the deaths of Henry VI, and
Clarence, and has not gone down in history as a villain. Henry IV
killed Richard II and the fact is blithely overlooked. Henry I
killed any number of people, including, as like as not, his brother
William I and no-one bats an eyelid. I have even heard Henry VIII
descibed as "great" in this forum, yet the list of his victims is
extensive. Even Caligula hasn't been portrayed with quite the same
villainous aspect as Richard. Why this should be the case is
fascinating, and ahuge issue, and surely comes down to propaganda.
How Hicks can deny there was a Tudor propaganda machine I really
don't know. I don't think it can be put down simply to greater
literacy, or to the impact of Shakespeare alone. Shakepeare was,
after all, merely taking and embellishing a well established image:
an image patently untrue, and provably so, in many respects. This is
not to say all respects, but the degree is significant enough to
make one doubt the rest.

We shouldn't have to. My experience is that the
> general public think Richard was a wicked man who murdered two
little
> boys in order to seize their throne; BUT that all you have to do
to
> make them think again is give them some genuine history. Just
knowing
> Richard's background during Edward's reign, that there is a case
to
> be made for his claim to the throne, that the boys initially went
to
> the Tower because that is where kings awaiting their coronation
were
> supposed to be, and that Richard made extremely good laws, is
enough
> to reset most people's minds. It may be more complicated, but this
is
> what history is all about.

I count it a great success each September if I make my students
begin to question the received view. I don't expect to convert them
all, if I do it's a bonus, and I take pains to present as fair a
picture as I can, warts and all, before telling them my personal
view and reasons for it, after that it's up to them. I wouldn't be
doing my job if I were merely trying to indoctrinate. If I make them
doubt, even for a moment, then I have achieved something worthwhile,
and if we can do that as a group with the public then it's worth
doing.
Brunhild
>
> Marie

At 19:38 04/12/2003, Marie wrote:
>I have even heard Henry VIII
>descibed as "great" in this forum, yet the list of his victims is
>extensive.

From a History of England, by a partial prejudiced and ignorant Historian
Henry VII
"His Majesty died & was succeeded by his son Henry whose only merit was his
not being quite so bad as his daughter Elizabeth."

For anyone who hasn't read Jane Austen's complete work (written when she
was a teenager to entertain her sister, try here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~lfdean/austen/history/fulltext.html).

'S good fun.

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 19:38 04/12/2003, Marie wrote:
> >I have even heard Henry VIII
> >descibed as "great" in this forum, yet the list of his victims is
> >extensive.
>
> From a History of England, by a partial prejudiced and ignorant
Historian
> Henry VII
> "His Majesty died & was succeeded by his son Henry whose only
merit was his
> not being quite so bad as his daughter Elizabeth."
>
> For anyone who hasn't read Jane Austen's complete work (written
when she
> was a teenager to entertain her sister, try here:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lfdean/austen/history/fulltext.html).
>
> 'S good fun.
>
> Jenny

Love it!
B