Re: Cecily Duchess of York
Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-08 21:38:33
Suzanne wrote: If Cecily was involved in Richard's bid
for the throne, could it be because, like Eleanor of
Aquitaine after her son Richard's death, she preferred
an adult son as king to defending the rights of a
grandson who was a minor? A son might be more under
her influence than a grandson ruled by his mother's
family (Eleanor didn't seem to like her
daughter-in-law Constance much either).
***
Your question made me think of another two.
What power did women like Cecily or Eleanor of
Aquitaine have besides the force of their
personalities?
How much influence did Cecily lose when she admitted
to adultery with Edward IV's father? Even if she and
Richard were close, wouldn't that admission have
weakened her influence with the other members of the
house of York?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
for the throne, could it be because, like Eleanor of
Aquitaine after her son Richard's death, she preferred
an adult son as king to defending the rights of a
grandson who was a minor? A son might be more under
her influence than a grandson ruled by his mother's
family (Eleanor didn't seem to like her
daughter-in-law Constance much either).
***
Your question made me think of another two.
What power did women like Cecily or Eleanor of
Aquitaine have besides the force of their
personalities?
How much influence did Cecily lose when she admitted
to adultery with Edward IV's father? Even if she and
Richard were close, wouldn't that admission have
weakened her influence with the other members of the
house of York?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-09 16:58:24
Helen wrote: As I understood it there was a claim
that Cecily in her anger at Edward's marriage claimed
that he was a bastard but the earliest documented of
that was in Mancini (1480s). Was there an earlier
record of that claim?
***
I don't know. But I have a question about the timing.
Did Mancini say Cecily lost her temper and said Edward
was a bastard right after she learned that Edward and
Elizabeth were married? Or was she supposed to have
said it it five years later in 1469? It seems to me
it makes a difference whether she said it in 1464 or
after holding her anger in for five years. She would
have had enough time to consider the consequences of
admitting adultery no matter how angry she was when
she finally said it.
***
Tim wrote: That's assuming that she ever did claim
that she'd committed adultery. We only have hearsay
evidence of it and the allegations that surfaced.
***
I'm just considering possibilities. Michael Jones'
book has raised a lot of questions, and I'm asking
what folks on the list think.
If someone did find a manuscript that seemed to prove
Edward was illigitimate and the House of York agreed
to kill his sons, I think a lot of folks would doubt
its authenticity. I'd have questions.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
that Cecily in her anger at Edward's marriage claimed
that he was a bastard but the earliest documented of
that was in Mancini (1480s). Was there an earlier
record of that claim?
***
I don't know. But I have a question about the timing.
Did Mancini say Cecily lost her temper and said Edward
was a bastard right after she learned that Edward and
Elizabeth were married? Or was she supposed to have
said it it five years later in 1469? It seems to me
it makes a difference whether she said it in 1464 or
after holding her anger in for five years. She would
have had enough time to consider the consequences of
admitting adultery no matter how angry she was when
she finally said it.
***
Tim wrote: That's assuming that she ever did claim
that she'd committed adultery. We only have hearsay
evidence of it and the allegations that surfaced.
***
I'm just considering possibilities. Michael Jones'
book has raised a lot of questions, and I'm asking
what folks on the list think.
If someone did find a manuscript that seemed to prove
Edward was illigitimate and the House of York agreed
to kill his sons, I think a lot of folks would doubt
its authenticity. I'd have questions.
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-09 17:12:46
Marie wrote: There were no women in England with
constitutional power, but there were many with social
influence - ie as mothers and wives.
***
Would that influence be strong enough to convince "the
house of York" and its supporters that they should
risk the consequences of *killing* Edward's sons?
Would they risk committing mortal sin because of
Cecily's mistakes? [Would they have thought in those
terms?]
It seems to me that members of "the house of York"
were caught between a rock and a hard place. The
consequences of removing Edward IV's sons were both
spiritually and materially serious. They faced big
losses no matter what they did. Would they have
blamed Cecily and Edward IV for putting them in such a
position? Would some have refused to cooperate
with Cecily after she admitted to adultery? If so,
how would that have affected Richard III's takeover?
It seems to me under those conditions "the house of
York" might have tried to avoid killing Edward IV's
sons, even though they felt they had to prevent Edward
V from taking the throne.
Thoughts, anyone?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
constitutional power, but there were many with social
influence - ie as mothers and wives.
***
Would that influence be strong enough to convince "the
house of York" and its supporters that they should
risk the consequences of *killing* Edward's sons?
Would they risk committing mortal sin because of
Cecily's mistakes? [Would they have thought in those
terms?]
It seems to me that members of "the house of York"
were caught between a rock and a hard place. The
consequences of removing Edward IV's sons were both
spiritually and materially serious. They faced big
losses no matter what they did. Would they have
blamed Cecily and Edward IV for putting them in such a
position? Would some have refused to cooperate
with Cecily after she admitted to adultery? If so,
how would that have affected Richard III's takeover?
It seems to me under those conditions "the house of
York" might have tried to avoid killing Edward IV's
sons, even though they felt they had to prevent Edward
V from taking the throne.
Thoughts, anyone?
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-12 15:54:42
I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
of Time" in my teens).
Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
the bodies)
Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
Richard would have made the knowledge public.
We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not have
taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was built.
If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and how
many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
Helen in Scotland
been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
of Time" in my teens).
Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
the bodies)
Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
Richard would have made the knowledge public.
We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not have
taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was built.
If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and how
many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
Helen in Scotland
Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-12 17:31:07
--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
> been fascinated with this period of history (since
reading "Daughter
> of Time" in my teens).
>
> Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign
I
> believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
> don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death
of
> the bodies)
>
> Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
> infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
> prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
> Richard would have made the knowledge public.
>
> We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
> and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
>
> I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
> forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
> boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not
have
> taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
> there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
> was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was
built.
> If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
> somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
> elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
> I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and
how
> many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
>
> Helen in Scotland
Hello Helen. Welcome to the list. There are two chapels in the Tower
that everybody get to see: St Peter ad Vincula, which is a free-
standing building on Tower Green (I believe it was actually a parish
church that got swallowed up in the grounds), and St John's Chapel in
the White Tower. St John's Chapel was built as the private royal
chapel in the early days, when the royal apartments were in the White
Tower.
By the 15th century the royal apartments were in a separate walled
enclosure occupying the SE corner of the Tower. This palace area was
partly bounded by the curtain wall, & partly by the S & E walls of
the White Tower, with its own wall to bridge the gaps between the
two. It had a garden between the two sets of curtain walls, and
included all the towers in the relevant sections of the curtain.
There was access to St John's Chapel from this new royal enclosure
via a stairway built on to the outside of the White Tower. It was
under or near this stair that the bodies were found. There was also a
chapel in the Wakefield Tower, which may have fallen out of use in
the time of Edward I when another private chapel was built in the
palace area. This would be the interesting one for your theory.
However, this whole royal enclosure was destroyed in the 17th
century, so we don't know that much about the layout, though I think
I am right in saying that it is now being investigated.
So the answer is 'yes', there was apparently a private chapel where a
funeral would have been held, which no longer exists.
Marie
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
> been fascinated with this period of history (since
reading "Daughter
> of Time" in my teens).
>
> Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign
I
> believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
> don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death
of
> the bodies)
>
> Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
> infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
> prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
> Richard would have made the knowledge public.
>
> We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
> and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
>
> I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
> forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
> boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not
have
> taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
> there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
> was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was
built.
> If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
> somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
> elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
> I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and
how
> many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
>
> Helen in Scotland
Hello Helen. Welcome to the list. There are two chapels in the Tower
that everybody get to see: St Peter ad Vincula, which is a free-
standing building on Tower Green (I believe it was actually a parish
church that got swallowed up in the grounds), and St John's Chapel in
the White Tower. St John's Chapel was built as the private royal
chapel in the early days, when the royal apartments were in the White
Tower.
By the 15th century the royal apartments were in a separate walled
enclosure occupying the SE corner of the Tower. This palace area was
partly bounded by the curtain wall, & partly by the S & E walls of
the White Tower, with its own wall to bridge the gaps between the
two. It had a garden between the two sets of curtain walls, and
included all the towers in the relevant sections of the curtain.
There was access to St John's Chapel from this new royal enclosure
via a stairway built on to the outside of the White Tower. It was
under or near this stair that the bodies were found. There was also a
chapel in the Wakefield Tower, which may have fallen out of use in
the time of Edward I when another private chapel was built in the
palace area. This would be the interesting one for your theory.
However, this whole royal enclosure was destroyed in the 17th
century, so we don't know that much about the layout, though I think
I am right in saying that it is now being investigated.
So the answer is 'yes', there was apparently a private chapel where a
funeral would have been held, which no longer exists.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-12 19:05:00
At 09:54 AM 1/12/2004, you wrote:
>I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
>been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
>of Time" in my teens).
>
>Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
>believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
>don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
>the bodies)
>
>Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
>infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
>prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
>Richard would have made the knowledge public.
He couldn't have- and that's the dilemma. On one hand, the contemporary
evidence indicates that Richard's taking the throne was a popular move. On
the other hand, if young Edward had caught a cold, Richard must have been
very concerned about it, because- given the history of such situations-
even a natural death would be assumed to have been a hushed-up murder at
Richard's hands.
Announce the death, and be blamed for it. Conceal the death, and be blamed
for it- but maybe not for a long time.
--Bob Waters
>I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
>been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
>of Time" in my teens).
>
>Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
>believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
>don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
>the bodies)
>
>Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
>infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
>prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
>Richard would have made the knowledge public.
He couldn't have- and that's the dilemma. On one hand, the contemporary
evidence indicates that Richard's taking the throne was a popular move. On
the other hand, if young Edward had caught a cold, Richard must have been
very concerned about it, because- given the history of such situations-
even a natural death would be assumed to have been a hushed-up murder at
Richard's hands.
Announce the death, and be blamed for it. Conceal the death, and be blamed
for it- but maybe not for a long time.
--Bob Waters
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-12 19:15:56
----- Original Message -----
From: helenmpearson
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Cecily Duchess of York
I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
of Time" in my teens).
Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
the bodies)
Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
Richard would have made the knowledge public.
We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not have
taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was built.
If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and how
many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
Helen in Scotland
Natural causes? I have wondered about this for some time. It is interesting that you have the same idea.
Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
From: helenmpearson
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Cecily Duchess of York
I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
of Time" in my teens).
Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
the bodies)
Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
Richard would have made the knowledge public.
We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not have
taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was built.
If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and how
many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
Helen in Scotland
Natural causes? I have wondered about this for some time. It is interesting that you have the same idea.
Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-13 11:26:19
> >
> Natural causes? I have wondered about this for some time. It is
interesting that you have the same idea.
> Stephen
>
>
I am going to make a huge assumption for the sake of argument. This
is merely an attempt to throw a spanner in the works and I can't
prove anything! The bodies found in The Tower are the missing boys.
(I know not proven).
If the cause of natural death was obvious then Richard would not have
hidden that. However natural death from cold / flu / other internal
infection would not have been obvious at that time and then it could
even have been "friends" of Richards that covered up the deaths.
Maybe Richard was told the boys had been sent abroad for their own
good. Richard had been in exile during his life and may well have
accepted that story. By the time he would have been concerned about
no news he was already dead himself.
As I said this is pure speculation. I just don't see the Richard who
was such a staunch supporter of Edward IV becoming the man that
popular history would have us accept.
Helen in Scotland.
> Natural causes? I have wondered about this for some time. It is
interesting that you have the same idea.
> Stephen
>
>
I am going to make a huge assumption for the sake of argument. This
is merely an attempt to throw a spanner in the works and I can't
prove anything! The bodies found in The Tower are the missing boys.
(I know not proven).
If the cause of natural death was obvious then Richard would not have
hidden that. However natural death from cold / flu / other internal
infection would not have been obvious at that time and then it could
even have been "friends" of Richards that covered up the deaths.
Maybe Richard was told the boys had been sent abroad for their own
good. Richard had been in exile during his life and may well have
accepted that story. By the time he would have been concerned about
no news he was already dead himself.
As I said this is pure speculation. I just don't see the Richard who
was such a staunch supporter of Edward IV becoming the man that
popular history would have us accept.
Helen in Scotland.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Cecily Duchess of York
2004-01-13 13:59:55
At 05:26 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
>If the cause of natural death was obvious then Richard would not have
>hidden that.
Excuse me, but why was that obvious? The practice of murdering a
predecessor and then claiming that he had died of natural causes was
well-precedented. The case of Richard II comes to mind. Given the
circumstances of Richard's ascension, if one or both of his teenage nephews
had died in the Tower, he would have been assumed by most people to have
been responsible even if in fact the death had been of natural causes, all
the more so if *both* succumbed. I don't remember who it was who wrote that
Richard must have trembled on his throne every time one of the boys
sneezed, but the deaths of the princes on his watch would have been the one
thing he would not have been forgiven despite the popularity of his
decision to take the throne, even if that death were perfectly natural.
Human cynicism being what it is- and precedent as well- the assumption
would have been general that the "natural causes" had been helped along by
an uncle who stood to benefit from the boys' death, and who had means and
opportunity.
--Bob Waters
>If the cause of natural death was obvious then Richard would not have
>hidden that.
Excuse me, but why was that obvious? The practice of murdering a
predecessor and then claiming that he had died of natural causes was
well-precedented. The case of Richard II comes to mind. Given the
circumstances of Richard's ascension, if one or both of his teenage nephews
had died in the Tower, he would have been assumed by most people to have
been responsible even if in fact the death had been of natural causes, all
the more so if *both* succumbed. I don't remember who it was who wrote that
Richard must have trembled on his throne every time one of the boys
sneezed, but the deaths of the princes on his watch would have been the one
thing he would not have been forgiven despite the popularity of his
decision to take the throne, even if that death were perfectly natural.
Human cynicism being what it is- and precedent as well- the assumption
would have been general that the "natural causes" had been helped along by
an uncle who stood to benefit from the boys' death, and who had means and
opportunity.
--Bob Waters
Natural deaths?
2004-01-13 14:28:42
--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> At 05:26 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
> >If the cause of natural death was obvious then Richard would not
have
> >hidden that.
>
> Excuse me, but why was that obvious?
Maybe I could phase what I mean better as:
If the cause of death was obviously natural would Richard have hidden
that?
If the cause of death was obvious - not that it was obvious Richard
would have made it public.
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> At 05:26 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
> >If the cause of natural death was obvious then Richard would not
have
> >hidden that.
>
> Excuse me, but why was that obvious?
Maybe I could phase what I mean better as:
If the cause of death was obviously natural would Richard have hidden
that?
If the cause of death was obvious - not that it was obvious Richard
would have made it public.
Natural causes.
2004-01-13 14:35:11
I take your point about assumed guilt if the boy's had died in
Richard's care.
I'm still toying with the idea that they dies from natural causes and
their deaths were hidden because the consequenses were feared.
When was it first apparent they were "missing"? Why didn't their
mother cause a stink at that point?
On another point I had to take to task someone who claimed the last
invasion of England was 1066!
Helen in Scotland
Richard's care.
I'm still toying with the idea that they dies from natural causes and
their deaths were hidden because the consequenses were feared.
When was it first apparent they were "missing"? Why didn't their
mother cause a stink at that point?
On another point I had to take to task someone who claimed the last
invasion of England was 1066!
Helen in Scotland
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Death - Natural Causes
2004-01-13 20:30:05
I have long held the belief that Edward V died in the Tower of an illness, although I do not think both princes died (I support the view that Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York).
However, if both died albeit of natural causes and had a funeral as suggested in a private chapel, why were they buried in unconsecrated ground (Richard was a godly man and I do not think he would have liked that on his conscience)
Do not think that the bodies in the Urn are of either of the princes.
Stephen LARK <smlark@...> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: helenmpearson
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Cecily Duchess of York
I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
of Time" in my teens).
Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
the bodies)
Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
Richard would have made the knowledge public.
We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not have
taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was built.
If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and how
many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
Helen in Scotland
Natural causes? I have wondered about this for some time. It is interesting that you have the same idea.
Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
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! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
However, if both died albeit of natural causes and had a funeral as suggested in a private chapel, why were they buried in unconsecrated ground (Richard was a godly man and I do not think he would have liked that on his conscience)
Do not think that the bodies in the Urn are of either of the princes.
Stephen LARK <smlark@...> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: helenmpearson
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Cecily Duchess of York
I'm new to this list so my comments may be very simple. I've long
been fascinated with this period of history (since reading "Daughter
of Time" in my teens).
Now we have bodies discovered in The Tower during Charles II reign I
believe. We don't know for certain the identity of the bones. We
don't know long the age of the bones (rather than the age at death of
the bodies)
Is it possible Edward V died from natural causes? If he had an
infection he could just have died. If he was ill could the other
prince have caught it also? Mind if that was the case I feel that
Richard would have made the knowledge public.
We must not forget that The Tower was a Royal Palace in those days
and did not have the reputation it gained in Tudor times.
I also wonder if there were private chapels within The Tower (now
forgotten) where a private funeral could have taken place? If the
boys were not important any more then a state funeral might not have
taken place. Forgotten chapels are not unknown - in Durham Castle
there is the Norman Chapel which was considered so old fashioned it
was "walled up" during Tudor times when The Tunstal Chapel was built.
If it has happened once there is no reason it did not happen
somewhere else. Was Ralph Tunstal copying something happening
elsewhere when he built a new chapel and walled in the old one????
I'm not sure how good the achitectural plans of The Tower are and how
many periods they cover - maybe not so good as one would expect????
Helen in Scotland
Natural causes? I have wondered about this for some time. It is interesting that you have the same idea.
Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
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! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Natural causes.
2004-01-14 01:04:39
Last point spoken like a true Scot, Helen!
I agree; there's no particular reason to assume that the boys were murdered
at all.
Bob Waters
At 08:34 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
>I take your point about assumed guilt if the boy's had died in
>Richard's care.
>
>I'm still toying with the idea that they dies from natural causes and
>their deaths were hidden because the consequenses were feared.
>
>When was it first apparent they were "missing"? Why didn't their
>mother cause a stink at that point?
>
>
>On another point I had to take to task someone who claimed the last
>invasion of England was 1066!
>
>Helen in Scotland
>
>
>
>----------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//>http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>[email protected]
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
I agree; there's no particular reason to assume that the boys were murdered
at all.
Bob Waters
At 08:34 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
>I take your point about assumed guilt if the boy's had died in
>Richard's care.
>
>I'm still toying with the idea that they dies from natural causes and
>their deaths were hidden because the consequenses were feared.
>
>When was it first apparent they were "missing"? Why didn't their
>mother cause a stink at that point?
>
>
>On another point I had to take to task someone who claimed the last
>invasion of England was 1066!
>
>Helen in Scotland
>
>
>
>----------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//>http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>[email protected]
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Natural causes.
2004-01-14 13:36:28
--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
>
> Last point spoken like a true Scot, Helen!
>
Except I'm a mongrel!
(Scots, English, Welsh, Irish and Norman French ancestry discovered -
so far!)
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
>
> Last point spoken like a true Scot, Helen!
>
Except I'm a mongrel!
(Scots, English, Welsh, Irish and Norman French ancestry discovered -
so far!)
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.