latest info on richard's re-burial

Would it be possible for you, Nick, or any of the other proponents of York Minister as a burial place for Richard, to explain, that against his wishes or not, that as Richard was buried in Leicester, how that can be undone?
We can rebury his skeleton, but we can't rebury Richard.
The essential Richard is now part of Leicester and there is nothing any of us can do about it.
To wish his remains to stay in Leicester is not necessarily a sign of disrespect.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Amen to that.

While Leicester Cathedral - among the three most
financially-challenged Anglican dioceses in England - has earmarked
£1.3M on a major redesign project and tomb which the Cathedral Fabric
Commission for England has rejected for its insensitivity to the
essentially Victorian interior design of St Martin's, the relatively
unspoiled medieval parish church of St Mary de Castro in Leicester has
been closed to the public since September because its spire is in
imminent danger of collapsing through the roof - and repair would cost
a similar sum of money.

It seems clear to me that the Cathedral Chapter have hitched their
wain not to a star, but to the evanescent comet, of King Richard's
reburial as the answer to all their business difficulties for the
visitor income it is assumed it will attract, and that all their
considerations are sordidly secular, devoid of respect for the
inferable wishes of the deceased, for the living descendants, for the
Catholic church of which King Richard was a faithful son, for many in
this Society, and for public opinion. No amount of sanctimonious
platitudes issuing from the chapter will amend their embarrassing
position.

Nick Ford.

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial

I bet they do. Because they have been hustling this from before the
off, and now it looks like an attempt to influence the judicial
procedure by insisting on a speedy decision. This situation is
unprecedented - both the finding of a king, and the legal challenge to
where he should be re-interred - and these things should not be pushed
through hastily. I don't want Richard's remains to be in a cardboard
box for any longer than they have to - but the church should stay out
of the legal procedure and wait patiently, like everyone else. It is
not disrespectful to do these things properly - and obviously to my
mind, it is incredibly disrespectful to want to inter a king in a
church/cathedral he would never ever have chosen for himself, nor his
family members either then or his familial descendants now would not
have chosen either. It's incredibly disrespectful to state that the
deceased had "honourable and dishonourable qualities", and to refer to
'sin' and
'redemption' as part of the prayers evoked from Richard's case.

I am fairly incensed at the stance being taken by the cathedral on
this, and the sheer lack of understanding that there might be a
different point of view of what might be respectful and needful in
terms of this king's earthly remains.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a link for the news story "Richard III remains: Reinterment delay 'disrespectful'" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23329424
>
> Apparently no court ruling yet, but Leicester cathedral wants a quick decision.
>

Amen to that.

While Leicester Cathedral - among the three most
financially-challenged Anglican dioceses in England - has earmarked
£1.3M on a major redesign project and tomb which the Cathedral Fabric
Commission for England has rejected for its insensitivity to the
essentially Victorian interior design of St Martin's, the relatively
unspoiled medieval parish church of St Mary de Castro in Leicester has
been closed to the public since September because its spire is in
imminent danger of collapsing through the roof - and repair would cost
a similar sum of money.

It seems clear to me that the Cathedral Chapter have hitched their
wain not to a star, but to the evanescent comet, of King Richard's
reburial as the answer to all their business difficulties for the
visitor income it is assumed it will attract, and that all their
considerations are sordidly secular, devoid of respect for the
inferable wishes of the deceased, for the living descendants, for the
Catholic church of which King Richard was a faithful son, for many in
this Society, and for public opinion. No amount of sanctimonious
platitudes issuing from the chapter will amend their embarrassing
position.

Nick Ford.

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial

I bet they do. Because they have been hustling this from before the
off, and now it looks like an attempt to influence the judicial
procedure by insisting on a speedy decision. This situation is
unprecedented - both the finding of a king, and the legal challenge to
where he should be re-interred - and these things should not be pushed
through hastily. I don't want Richard's remains to be in a cardboard
box for any longer than they have to - but the church should stay out
of the legal procedure and wait patiently, like everyone else. It is
not disrespectful to do these things properly - and obviously to my
mind, it is incredibly disrespectful to want to inter a king in a
church/cathedral he would never ever have chosen for himself, nor his
family members either then or his familial descendants now would not
have chosen either. It's incredibly disrespectful to state that the
deceased had "honourable and dishonourable qualities", and to refer to
'sin' and
'redemption' as part of the prayers evoked from Richard's case.

I am fairly incensed at the stance being taken by the cathedral on
this, and the sheer lack of understanding that there might be a
different point of view of what might be respectful and needful in
terms of this king's earthly remains.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a link for the news story "Richard III remains: Reinterment delay 'disrespectful'" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23329424
>
> Apparently no court ruling yet, but Leicester cathedral wants a quick decision.
>

I take your point, Jessie, on the fact that a lot of what was Richard will remain in Leicester. But if we look to Richard's own actions for clues as to how he would have felt about the issue, we do have the removal of the bones of his father and brother from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, and of the bones of Henry VI from Chertsey to Windsor. He also had the remains (ie bones) of the Towton dead removed from the ditches and taken to consecrated ground without worrying about what would remain behind in the soil from which they had been removed. It was common practice at the time: people were seemingly very content to regard the dry bones of their ancestors as their true remains, and to have them removed sometimes very long distances to lie in a more suitable place. So moving Richard's bones to York would be quite in keeping.

Marie

I can see exactly where you are coming from, Marie. However, as I understand it, it is also a custom and tradition in more recent years to 're-bury disinterred bones from archaeological digs as near as possible to the original site, but on consecrated ground.
As I have said, I will visit Richard's remains wherever they are 're-interred, but for the reasons I have stated above, I do think that Leicester have a good case, and it does seem a little unfair for other members, not yourself, to always impugn their case.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I take your point, Jessie, on the fact that a lot of what was Richard will remain in Leicester. But if we look to Richard's own actions for clues as to how he would have felt about the issue, we do have the removal of the bones of his father and brother from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, and of the bones of Henry VI from Chertsey to Windsor.  He also had the remains (ie bones) of the Towton dead removed from the ditches and taken to consecrated ground without worrying about what would remain behind in the soil from which they had been removed. It was common practice at the time: people were seemingly very content to regard the dry bones of their ancestors as their true remains, and to have them removed sometimes very long distances to lie in a more suitable place. So moving Richard's bones to York would be quite in keeping.

Marie

I completely understand where you are coming from on this, Marie, but I also understand that modern practice and tradition is to rebury disinterred bones from archaeological digs as close as possible to their original site, on the nearest consecrated ground.
As I have said, I will visit wherever they 're-inter Richard, but Leicester do have a strong case, and it is unfortunate when other members, though not yourself, constantly impugn their motives.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I take your point, Jessie, on the fact that a lot of what was Richard will remain in Leicester. But if we look to Richard's own actions for clues as to how he would have felt about the issue, we do have the removal of the bones of his father and brother from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, and of the bones of Henry VI from Chertsey to Windsor.  He also had the remains (ie bones) of the Towton dead removed from the ditches and taken to consecrated ground without worrying about what would remain behind in the soil from which they had been removed. It was common practice at the time: people were seemingly very content to regard the dry bones of their ancestors as their true remains, and to have them removed sometimes very long distances to lie in a more suitable place. So moving Richard's bones to York would be quite in keeping.

Marie

I take your point, Jessie, on the fact that a lot of what was Richard will remain in Leicester. But if we look to Richard's own actions for clues as to how he would have felt about the issue, we do have the removal of the bones of his father and brother from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, and of the bones of Henry VI from Chertsey to Windsor. He also had the remains (ie bones) of the Towton dead removed from the ditches and taken to consecrated ground without worrying about what would remain behind in the soil from which they had been removed. It was common practice at the time: people were seemingly very content to regard the dry bones of their ancestors as their true remains, and to have them removed sometimes very long distances to lie in a more suitable place. So moving Richard's bones to York would be quite in keeping.

Marie

Hi Paul,

I'm not obsessed with York, as I think is quite clear from the history of my posts. But as regards the evidence:-

1) Had there been a burial ceremony for Prince Edward in Westminster Abbey, and his body brought all that way, surely we would know about that.

2) According to J A-H, Richard would not have attended Anne's funeral. I get the impression that there was a general rule for state funerals and coronations that people with any seniority to the subject stayed away (which is not to say the rule wasn't occasionally broken). So Henry VII and Margaret Beaufort couldn't openly attend Elizabeth of York's coronation, and Edward V was not taken to his father's funeral. Ergo I think it likely that Richard and Anne would not have attended Prince Edward's funeral (I don't think HVII & EofY attended Arthur's). My suspicion is that the services with the beautiful singing that Von Poppelau attended in York with Richard on his arrival there at the beginning of May 1484 were post-burial services for Prince Edward. I can't prove it, but my guess is as worthwhile as yours. If Prince Edward were indeed buried in York, then we have a clear motive for Richard's subsequent building of that huge chantry. Perhaps when it was finished Anne's remains would have been brought with great ceremony northwards to lie with her son there. That would explain why we have no record of a tomb being commissioned for either Anne or Edward.

Richard would indeed have married again, had he survived Bosworth, and would then most probably have been buried at Westminster or Windsor with his second queen. But he did not survive Bosworth. Currently the remains of Richard, his wife and their son are in three separate places. What will be will be, and I'm not losing sleep over it because for me finding out the truth about him matters far more than the location of his bones. I have to keep reminding myself that, when the dig started, just finding his remains so that they could be reinterred with dignity was beyond most people's wildest dreams.

Marie

Richard's being buried in Leicester has already been undone by his being dug up. He is no longer buried in Leicester. His bones are being stored in Leicester.

His usurper dictated where he was buried. I hardly think Richard would want to remain where the Tydder dictated in any way, shape, or bone.

The essential, live Richard was far more a part of York, of Yorkshire and its people than he ever was of Leicester.

~Weds

Would it be possible for you, Nick, or any of the other proponents of York Minister as a burial place for Richard, to explain, that against his wishes or not, that as Richard was buried in Leicester, how that can be undone?
We can rebury his skeleton, but we can't rebury Richard.
The essential Richard is now part of Leicester and there is nothing any of us can do about it.
To wish his remains to stay in Leicester is not necessarily a sign of disrespect.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Amen to that.

While Leicester Cathedral - among the three most
financially-challenged Anglican dioceses in England - has earmarked
£1.3M on a major redesign project and tomb which the Cathedral Fabric
Commission for England has rejected for its insensitivity to the
essentially Victorian interior design of St Martin's, the relatively
unspoiled medieval parish church of St Mary de Castro in Leicester has
been closed to the public since September because its spire is in
imminent danger of collapsing through the roof - and repair would cost
a similar sum of money.

It seems clear to me that the Cathedral Chapter have hitched their
wain not to a star, but to the evanescent comet, of King Richard's
reburial as the answer to all their business difficulties for the
visitor income it is assumed it will attract, and that all their
considerations are sordidly secular, devoid of respect for the
inferable wishes of the deceased, for the living descendants, for the
Catholic church of which King Richard was a faithful son, for many in
this Society, and for public opinion. No amount of sanctimonious
platitudes issuing from the chapter will amend their embarrassing
position.

Nick Ford.

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial

I bet they do. Because they have been hustling this from before the
off, and now it looks like an attempt to influence the judicial
procedure by insisting on a speedy decision. This situation is
unprecedented - both the finding of a king, and the legal challenge to
where he should be re-interred - and these things should not be pushed
through hastily. I don't want Richard's remains to be in a cardboard
box for any longer than they have to - but the church should stay out
of the legal procedure and wait patiently, like everyone else. It is
not disrespectful to do these things properly - and obviously to my
mind, it is incredibly disrespectful to want to inter a king in a
church/cathedral he would never ever have chosen for himself, nor his
family members either then or his familial descendants now would not
have chosen either. It's incredibly disrespectful to state that the
deceased had "honourable and dishonourable qualities", and to refer to
'sin' and
'redemption' as part of the prayers evoked from Richard's case.

I am fairly incensed at the stance being taken by the cathedral on
this, and the sheer lack of understanding that there might be a
different point of view of what might be respectful and needful in
terms of this king's earthly remains.

Jess, what you're citing is the custom in the case of bones that cannot be identified, whose relatives cannot be traced.

As I understand it, the legal custom in the case of bones that can be identified is to notify the relatives, who are then given the choice of where to rebury the remains.

In the end, the court will decide who has the right to bury Richard -- Leicester that claims to own him, or the Plantagenet Alliance that claims him as an ancestor they care about.

I can see exactly where you are coming from, Marie. However, as I understand it, it is also a custom and tradition in more recent years to 're-bury disinterred bones from archaeological digs as near as possible to the original site, but on consecrated ground.
As I have said, I will visit Richard's remains wherever they are 're-interred, but for the reasons I have stated above, I do think that Leicester have a good case, and it does seem a little unfair for other members, not yourself, to always impugn their case.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I take your point, Jessie, on the fact that a lot of what was Richard will remain in Leicester. But if we look to Richard's own actions for clues as to how he would have felt about the issue, we do have the removal of the bones of his father and brother from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, and of the bones of Henry VI from Chertsey to Windsor. He also had the remains (ie bones) of the Towton dead removed from the ditches and taken to consecrated ground without worrying about what would remain behind in the soil from which they had been removed. It was common practice at the time: people were seemingly very content to regard the dry bones of their ancestors as their true remains, and to have them removed sometimes very long distances to lie in a more suitable place. So moving Richard's bones to York would be quite in keeping.

Marie

Jess, what you're citing is the custom in the case of bones that cannot be identified, whose relatives cannot be traced.

As I understand it, the legal custom in the case of bones that can be identified is to notify the relatives, who are then given the choice of where to rebury the remains.

In the end, the court will decide who has the right to bury Richard -- Leicester that claims to own him, or the Plantagenet Alliance that claims him as an ancestor they care about.

Who's to say, indeed, Paul? Seems highly unlikely to have been a thank you to the city unless to the extent that the priests would probably have run a school on the side. I've pointed out before that Richard hasn't stated for us his intentions regarding this college of priests in York (which was to have been huge - larger than those he had founded at Middleham and Barnard Castle), but that it was intended as a family mausoleum has been suggested by historians right from the outset. All I'm saying is that it is *likely* that Richard chose York Minster as a burial place for his son if for no one else. And there is no gainsaying the fact that Richard had long and warm relations with York, and that he went out of his way to try to help the city while he was king. The people on this forum realise there's no proof that Richard had asked to be buried in York; they're just setting that against his lack of background with Leicester.

I'm personally not favouring an argument over burial place - it is undignified and, if there is such a thing as an immortal soul, surely not conducive to the repose of the same. That's why I haven't joined the campaign for burial in York. I'm just trying to establish the facts and likelihoods - - so that the squabble over burial places doesn't get so overheated that it loses touch with reality. These facts remain relevant to Richard's story even if not to where his bones will eventually be laid to rest. An unrecorded transference of Edward of Middleham's remains to Westminster for a funeral too private to achieve notice is certainly not a fact and, for reasons one of which I have already given, not likely. Another reason is that from Nottingham Richard travelled northwards, to Pontefract, York, Middleham, Barnard Castle, Durham.... not down to Westminster. Please can we discuss the history amicably and all agree to differ over the burial issue.

Marie

I wonder if I,or anyone I know, are related to Richard? After 500 years anything is possible!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jess, what you're citing is the custom in the case of bones that cannot be identified, whose relatives cannot be traced.

As I understand it, the legal custom in the case of bones that can be identified is to notify the relatives, who are then given the choice of where to rebury the remains.

In the end, the court will decide who has the right to bury Richard -- Leicester that claims to own him, or the Plantagenet Alliance that claims him as an ancestor they care about.

I wonder if I,or anyone I know, are related to Richard? After 500 years anything is possible!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jess, what you're citing is the custom in the case of bones that cannot be identified, whose relatives cannot be traced.

As I understand it, the legal custom in the case of bones that can be identified is to notify the relatives, who are then given the choice of where to rebury the remains.

In the end, the court will decide who has the right to bury Richard -- Leicester that claims to own him, or the Plantagenet Alliance that claims him as an ancestor they care about.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6903 - Release Date: 12/09/13

Thank you so much for that explanation, Alan.
So really the Alliance's argument is fraudulent and they have no more right than anyone else to decide where Richard wanted to be buried.
My guess, as he was a king of England, and because that was where he buried his beloved Anne, is Westminster Abbey, not York.

However, thank goodness, it is not for any of us to decide, we just all want this decided quickly and to see him buried with dignity, so to second guess his wishes is not of benefit to anyone.
Better if we all unite in achieving this and defending the reputation of our much maligned King Richard.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I wonder if I,or anyone I know, are related to Richard? After 500 years anything is possible!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jess, what you're citing is the custom in the case of bones that cannot be identified, whose relatives cannot be traced.

As I understand it, the legal custom in the case of bones that can be identified is to notify the relatives, who are then given the choice of where to rebury the remains.

In the end, the court will decide who has the right to bury Richard -- Leicester that claims to own him, or the Plantagenet Alliance that claims him as an ancestor they care about.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6903 - Release Date: 12/09/13

As far as I know Richard Duke of York had an older sister Isabel, who was married to Henry Bourchier, Earl

of Essex, oldest brother of Cardinal Bourchier. They had four sons. The Earl of Essex died 1483, two sons

predeceased him according to the genealogical tree in Charles Ross' "Edward IV".

I have often wondered why Isabel of York never gets mentioned and that nobody,in the discussion about

Cardinal Bourchier realised that he was actually 'family' to the York brothers.

Eva

There has been a degree of intermarriage but de Ruvigny (Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal) stretched to several volumes a century ago. His names included those descended from:

The legitimised (TR 1486) children of Edward IV's bigamous "marriage".

George of Clarence

Anne of Exeter

Isobel of Essex, sister of Richard's father

He didn't include Edward's other lines - eg the Lumley and Lascelles - or the potential descendants of Elizabeth of Suffolk. Intermarriage tests to cease after a few generations in that the gentry and nobility practice it less often than those of immediate Royal blood. The numbers will have grown since de Ruvigny documented them.

So there must still be about a million of Richard's collateral descendants out there. If "his family" should decide where he is to be reburied, then these million people must all be traced and consulted. Good luck with that.

And of course the Tudor dynasty except Henry VII himself were descended from the Plantagenants themselves through Elizabeth of York.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

There has been a degree of intermarriage but de Ruvigny (Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal) stretched to several volumes a century ago.  His names included those descended from:

The legitimised (TR 1486) children of Edward IV's bigamous "marriage".

George of Clarence

Anne of Exeter

Isobel of Essex, sister of Richard's father

He didn't include Edward's other lines - eg the Lumley and Lascelles - or the potential descendants of Elizabeth of Suffolk. Intermarriage tests to cease after a few generations in that the gentry and nobility practice it less often than those of immediate Royal blood. The numbers will have grown since de Ruvigny documented them.

So there must still be about a million of Richard's collateral descendants out there. If "his family" should decide where he is to be reburied, then these million people must all be traced and consulted. Good luck with that.

And of course the Tudor dynasty except Henry VII himself were descended from the Plantagenants themselves through Elizabeth of York.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

There has been a degree of intermarriage but de Ruvigny (Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal) stretched to several volumes a century ago.  His names included those descended from:

The legitimised (TR 1486) children of Edward IV's bigamous "marriage".

George of Clarence

Anne of Exeter

Isobel of Essex, sister of Richard's father

He didn't include Edward's other lines - eg the Lumley and Lascelles - or the potential descendants of Elizabeth of Suffolk. Intermarriage tests to cease after a few generations in that the gentry and nobility practice it less often than those of immediate Royal blood. The numbers will have grown since de Ruvigny documented them.

So there must still be about a million of Richard's collateral descendants out there. If "his family" should decide where he is to be reburied, then these million people must all be traced and consulted. Good luck with that.

So it is not correct to assume that by killing, shall we call them,Yorkist's, that Henry VII substantially reduced the population of those with Plantagenant blood around today.

Interesting.

Many thanks.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jess,

Henry Tudor had three 'Plantagenet' ancestors in the 6th generation. He was descended from Edward III - through John of Gaunt - this is nearly always shown in books about the Wars of the Roses. He was also descended from Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent and Eleanor Plantagenet.

Regards
David

And of course the Tudor dynasty except Henry VII himself were descended from the Plantagenants themselves through Elizabeth of York.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

There has been a degree of intermarriage but de Ruvigny (Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal) stretched to several volumes a century ago.  His names included those descended from:

The legitimised (TR 1486) children of Edward IV's bigamous "marriage".

George of Clarence

Anne of Exeter

Isobel of Essex, sister of Richard's father

He didn't include Edward's other lines - eg the Lumley and Lascelles - or the potential descendants of Elizabeth of Suffolk. Intermarriage tests to cease after a few generations in that the gentry and nobility practice it less often than those of immediate Royal blood. The numbers will have grown since de Ruvigny documented them.

So there must still be about a million of Richard's collateral descendants out there. If "his family" should decide where he is to be reburied, then these million people must all be traced and consulted. Good luck with that.

To be fair to the PA, to which I am not a member, they are not demanding that they alone should determine where Richard is reburied. They are simply saying that the decision on the location of burial for a king of England should be subjected to a public consultation. They also readily agreed to an independent panel of experts as suggested by justice Haddon-Cave in August. If you agree with justice secretary Chris Grayling that PA should have no standing in bring in the lawsuit for a judicial review, that matter was settled by the court in August, that PA does have standing, and judicial review is going forward, unless the latest offer of a public consultation by Leicester city council in November is successful in resolving the matter out of court.
While watching the BBC documentary on discovering Richard's remains, everyone treated his 17th generation nephew, Michael Ibsen, with courtesy and respect, as a distant relative who shared blood, DNA, with the deceased, so why not accord the same to members of PA? If you are of European descent living in England, then you are likely related to Richard, so when the public consultation happens, you should let your opinion heard if you are so inclined.

hli4

Genealogy doesn't work like that, sadly - I'd love to be a Plantagenet descendant.

Marie

Oooops that should have read slaving away not slanting...these IPads have a way of changing what you type to something completely different...Doh...Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Me too Marie...unfortunately if we were able to delve back that far...which I doubt...we would find ourselves descended from the cook slanting away in the kitchen or worse still the spit boy. Eileen
>

You and me both. Three sides of mine I suspect were peasants all the way back and the one that weren't came over with the Conqueror and moved to Wales and I have a nasty feeling if I delved any further(we've got to the 1640s) there might be connections with the other side. I'd rather not know if I'm even a tiny little bit Tudor.

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/12/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Re: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial
To:
Date: Wednesday, 11 December, 2013, 20:26




Genealogy doesn't work like that, sadly
- I'd love to be a Plantagenet
descendant.Marie

I haven't really researched my family tree although I do know enough to take it
back a couple of hundred years, lots of Devon and Essex farmers in there and some Scottish aristocracy. However, I do know definitely that my great grandmother was a Buckingham, so maybe we shouldn't try too hard here too prove that the DoB killed the Princes in the Tower.

Jess

Sent by e.mail on Android

 You and me both. Three sides of mine I suspect were peasants all the way back and the one that weren't came over with the Conqueror and moved to Wales and I have a nasty feeling if I delved any further(we've got to the 1640s) there might be connections with the other side. I'd rather not know if I'm even a tiny little bit Tudor.

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/12/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Re: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial
To:
Date: Wednesday, 11 December, 2013, 20:26




Genealogy doesn't work like that, sadly
- I'd love to be a Plantagenet
descendant.Marie

That's probably a good thing!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Never mind Jessie, we can't help what our ancestors did!   Liz
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013, 12:02
Subject: Re: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial



I haven't really researched my family tree although I do know enough to take it
back a couple of hundred years, lots of Devon and Essex farmers in there and some Scottish aristocracy. However, I do know definitely that my great grandmother was a Buckingham, so maybe we shouldn't try too hard here too prove that the DoB killed the Princes in the Tower. Jess
Sent by e.mail on Android
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial
Sent: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 11:44:35 AM

 
 You and me both. Three sides of mine I suspect were peasants all the way back and the one that weren't came over with the Conqueror and moved to Wales and I have a nasty feeling if I delved any further(we've got to the 1640s) there might be connections with the other side. I'd rather not know if I'm even a tiny little bit Tudor.

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/12/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Re: Re: latest info on richard's re-burial
To:
Date: Wednesday, 11 December, 2013, 20:26




Genealogy doesn't work like that, sadly
- I'd love to be a Plantagenet
descendant.Marie

No problem, Hilary - it's on the inside back cover of the Ricardian uner "Librarian, Non-Fiction Papers".

Marie