Anyone subscribe to The Times on line?

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns
what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We
know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot
read the letter. Can't anyone on here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
Sandra
=^..^=

Hicks is reminding me more and more of the Holocaust denyer David
Irving, so-called WW2 historian who so convinced himself that his
crazy ideas - based on sources he twisted to support his beliefs -
were reality, that he spouted more and more extreme and rdiculous
ideas until nobody took him seriously at all.
Hicks has developed a real hatred for Richard over the past 20 years
his opinions have become  steadily more malevolent, in spite or all
increasing evidence that he is totally wrong in everything except
:-  Richard was born at Fotheringhay, died at Bosworth, and married
a lady named Anne Neville. Oh, and of course, and he had a brother
called George, Hicks devotion to whose memory is at the root of all
his problems and prejudices.
Hopefully his saying that the experts saying they are 99.99% certain
the remains are of King Richard will be ignored, as will I hope all
his writings, many of which at times disgust me.
Paul

On 15/12/2014 08:11, 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... [] wrote:
There is a letter in today's edition of the above
newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in
Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this,
of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot
read the letter. Can't anyone on here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
 
 
Sandra
=^..^=

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan here.
This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times
in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read
his arguments somewhere before.

Richard's skeleton
Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on
our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not
that of Richard III. He states that there
are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes
[buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same
mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]
He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed
analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order
to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that
this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown
a match by chance.
Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of
Richard and sought only supporting evidence.
A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical
analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. We considered all relevant lines of evidence
and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of
Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per
cent in favour. Lastly, Hicks refers to wild
accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do
we make any such accusations.
T.King, University of Leicester
MG Thomas, UCL
K Schürer, University of Leicester
Sent from Windows Mail From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 08:11To:

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns
what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We
know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot
read the letter. Can't anyone on here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
Sandra
=^..^=

Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how could he even posit such nonsense?



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, janmulrenan@... [] <> wrote:


Dear Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan here.
This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before.


Richard's skeleton
Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III.
He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]
He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly
rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.
Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence.
A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true.
We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour.
Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.
T.King, University of Leicester
MG Thomas, UCL
K Schürer, University of Leicester
Sent from Windows Mail
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 08:11
To:

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't
anyone on here? It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
Sandra
=^..^=

He's in love with George of Clarence, and has always believed
Shakespeare.....poor thing! :-)
The more he comes out with such nonsense, the fewer will listen to
anything he says.
Paul

On 15/12/2014 16:20, Pamela Bain
pbain@... [] wrote:
Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how could he even posit such
nonsense? 



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, janmulrenan@...
[] <>
wrote:

 
Dear
Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan
here.
This
is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the
Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I
didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere
before. 

 
Richard's
skeleton
Sir,
Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on
our research findings, suggests that the skeleton
found in Leicester is not that of Richard III. 
He states that there are lots of candidates
yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the
boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle
injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA
{mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.] 
He overlooks the fact that the publication
represents a detailed analysis of Richard's
maternal-line relatives across seven generations in
order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA
type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type
is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to
have shown a match by chance.
Hicks
also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of
Richard and sought only supporting evidence. 
A cursory reading of the paper and an
examination of our statistical analyses makes it
abundantly clear that the opposite is true. 
We considered all relevant lines of evidence
and made every effort to weight the analysis against
the remains being those of Richard III, yet still
produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994
per cent in favour. 
Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of
bastardy.  Nowhewere do we make any
such accusations.
T.King,
University of Leicester
MG
Thomas, UCL
K
Schürer, University of Leicester
 
Sent from Windows Mail
 
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014
08:11
To: 
 
 
There is a letter in today's edition of the
above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says
about the remains in Leicester NOT being those
of Richard. We know he says this, of course,
but I don't subscribe to the paper and so
cannot read the letter. Can't anyone on here?
It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
 
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 

Thank you Paul, that is reassuring!



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
bale475@... [] <> wrote:

He's in love with George of Clarence, and has always believed Shakespeare.....poor thing! :-)
The more he comes out with such nonsense, the fewer will listen to anything he says.
Paul


On 15/12/2014 16:20, Pamela Bain
pbain@... [] wrote:
Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how could he even posit such nonsense?



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM,
janmulrenan@... [] <> wrote:

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan here.
This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before.


Richard's skeleton
Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III.
He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]
He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly
rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.
Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence.
A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true.
We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour.
Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.
T.King, University of Leicester
MG Thomas, UCL
K Schürer, University of Leicester
Sent from Windows Mail
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 08:11
To:
There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't
anyone on here? It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
Sandra
=^..^=

Well I, as you will know, have a certain sympathy for our George but I'm not with Hicks! On the Shakespeare topic, did anyone see Jeremy Irons on Henry IVs (I & II) and Henry V? He was very good at pointing out how Shakespeare purposely disregarded r subverted history (in this case Holinshed) for dramatic impact. What he was also good at was emphasising the underlying guilt felt by Henry IV at deposing an annointed king. One couldn't help thinking that the reason Henry VII is missing from the history plays is that it would have been exactly the same thing. H From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> To: "<>" <> Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014, 16:52 Subject: Re: Anyone subscribe to The Times online?
Thank you Paul, that is reassuring!



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
bale475@... [] <> wrote:

He's in love with George of Clarence, and has always believed Shakespeare.....poor thing! :-)
The more he comes out with such nonsense, the fewer will listen to anything he says.
Paul

On 15/12/2014 16:20, Pamela Bain
pbain@... [] wrote:
Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how could he even posit such nonsense?



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM,
janmulrenan@... [] <> wrote:

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan here.
This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before.
Richard's skeleton
Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III.
He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]
He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly
rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.
Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence.
A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true.
We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour.
Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.
T.King, University of Leicester
MG Thomas, UCL
K Schürer, University of Leicester
Sent from Windows Mail
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 08:11
To:
There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't
anyone on here? It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
Sandra
=^..^=

Yes..it's hardly George's fault the prof supports him....poor George...of all the rotten luck! Eileen

I can't help but think that Professor Hick's is making himself look ridiculous. Why would anyone read his books, or believe anything he says?
He is bringing discredit upon himself.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Anyone subscribe to The Times on line?
Sent:
Mon, Dec 15, 2014 4:20:00 PM

 

Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how could he even posit such nonsense? 



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, janmulrenan@... [] <> wrote:

 

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan here.
This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before. 

 
Richard's skeleton
Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III. 
He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.] 
He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly
rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.
Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence. 
A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. 
We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour. 
Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy.  Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.
T.King, University of Leicester
MG Thomas, UCL
K Schürer, University of Leicester
 
Sent from Windows Mail
 
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 08:11
To: 
 
 

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't
anyone on here? It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
 
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 

Jess wrote "I can't help but think that Professor Hick's is making himself look ridiculous. Why would anyone read his books, or believe anything he says? He is bringing discredit upon himself."Good, saves us all the hard job and leaves us the funny part, watch him drown in his nonsense. Mac

I very much doubt it, and if Henry VII did feel any guilt, I'm sure
mother would have slapped it out of him!
Paul

On 15/12/2014 17:23, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Well I, as
you will know, have a certain sympathy for our George but I'm
not with Hicks!
 
On the
Shakespeare topic, did anyone see Jeremy Irons on Henry IVs (I
& II) and Henry V? He was very good at pointing out how
Shakespeare purposely disregarded r subverted history  (in
this case Holinshed) for dramatic impact. What he was also
good at was emphasising the underlying guilt felt by Henry IV
at deposing an annointed king. One couldn't help thinking that
the reason Henry VII is missing from the history plays is that
it would have been exactly the same thing. H   

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@...
[]"
<>
To:
"<>"
<>
Sent:
Monday, 15 December 2014, 16:52
Subject:
Re: Anyone subscribe to The
Times online?

 
Thank you Paul, that is reassuring! 





On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Paul Trevor
Bale
bale475@...
[] <>
wrote:

 
He's in love with George of
Clarence, and has always believed
Shakespeare.....poor thing! :-)
The more he comes out with such
nonsense, the fewer will listen to
anything he says.
Paul

On
15/12/2014 16:20, Pamela Bain
pbain@...
[] wrote:
Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how
could he even posit such nonsense? 



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM,
janmulrenan@...
[] <>
wrote:

 
Dear
Sandra & all Forum
members,
Jan
here.
This
is what appeared in
today's newsprint edition
of the Times in response
to Professor Hicks's
letter, which I didn't
keep because I had read
his arguments somewhere
before. 
 
Richard's
skeleton
Sir,
Professor Hicks, in his
letter [Dec 5] commenting
on our research findings,
suggests that the skeleton
found in Leicester is not
that of Richard III. 
He states that
there are lots of
candidates yet seems
unable to specify one who
ticks all the boxes
[buried in the choir of
Greyfriars, battle
injuries, aged mid-30s,
same mitochondrial DNA
{mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.] 
He overlooks the
fact that the publication
represents a detailed
analysis of Richard's
maternal-line relatives
across seven generations
in order to account for
others sharing the same
mtDNA type through known
relation  and that this
mtDNA type is exceedingly
rare and therefore highly
unlikely to have shown a
match by chance.
Hicks
also claims that we
presumed the bones to be
those of Richard and
sought only supporting
evidence. 
A cursory reading
of the paper and an
examination of our
statistical analyses makes
it abundantly clear that
the opposite is true. 
We considered all
relevant lines of evidence
and made every effort to
weight the analysis
against the remains being
those of Richard III, yet
still produce a highly
conservative probability
of 99.9994 per cent in
favour. 
Lastly, Hicks
refers to wild
accusations of bastardy.
 Nowhewere do
we make any such
accusations.
T.King,
University of Leicester
MG
Thomas, UCL
K
Schürer, University of
Leicester
 
Sent from Windows Mail
 
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]
Sent: Monday,
15 December 2014
08:11
To: 
 
 
There is a
letter in today's
edition of the
above newspaper
that concerns what
Hicks says about
the remains in
Leicester NOT
being those of
Richard. We know
he says this, of
course, but I
don't subscribe to
the paper and so
cannot read the
letter. Can't
anyone on here?
It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
 
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 

My point exactly Jess, but I do wonder how he keeps getting
published, as does the Weir witch! Somebody must keep buying their
lies somewhere.
Paul

On 15/12/2014 19:03, Jessie Skinner
janjovian@... [] wrote:
I can't help but think that Professor Hick's is making
himself look ridiculous. Why would anyone read his
books, or believe anything he says?
He is bringing discredit upon himself.
Jess
Sent
from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
Pamela Bain pbain@... []
<>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Anyone subscribe to The
Times on line?
Sent:
Mon, Dec 15, 2014 4:20:00 PM

 


Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how could he
even posit such nonsense? 



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, janmulrenan@...
[] <>
wrote:

 
Dear
Sandra & all Forum members,
Jan
here.
This
is what appeared in today's
newsprint edition of the Times
in response to Professor Hicks's
letter, which I didn't keep
because I had read his arguments
somewhere before. 


 
Richard's
skeleton
Sir,
Professor Hicks, in his letter
[Dec 5] commenting on our
research findings, suggests that
the skeleton found in Leicester
is not that of Richard III. 
He states that there are
lots of candidates yet seems
unable to specify one who ticks
all the boxes [buried in the
choir of Greyfriars, battle
injuries, aged mid-30s, same
mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA},
scoliosis, etc.] 
He overlooks the fact
that the publication represents
a detailed analysis of Richard's
maternal-line relatives across
seven generations in order to
account for others sharing the
same mtDNA type through known
relation  and that this mtDNA
type is exceedingly rare and
therefore highly unlikely to
have shown a match by chance.
Hicks
also claims that we presumed
the bones to be those of Richard
and sought only supporting
evidence. 
A cursory reading of the
paper and an examination of our
statistical analyses makes it
abundantly clear that the
opposite is true. 
We considered all
relevant lines of evidence and
made every effort to weight the
analysis against the remains
being those of Richard III, yet
still produce a highly
conservative probability of
99.9994 per cent in favour. 
Lastly, Hicks refers to
wild accusations of bastardy.
 Nowhewere do we
make any such accusations.
T.King,
University of Leicester
MG
Thomas, UCL
K
Schürer, University of Leicester
 
Sent from Windows Mail
 
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]
Sent: Monday, 15
December 2014 08:11
To: 
 
 
There is a letter in
today's edition of the
above newspaper that
concerns what Hicks says
about the remains in
Leicester NOT being
those of Richard. We
know he says this, of
course, but I don't
subscribe to the paper
and so cannot read the
letter. Can't anyone on
here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
 
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 

I don't know about guilt but he was undoubtedly haunted, despite mum. I also think it tells us a fair bit about Edward who seems to have felt no guilt whatsoever about knocking off poor old Henry VI who'd never hurt a fly, or indeed about knocking off his own brother. It was left to Richard to try to put the situation right by having Henry buried at Windsor. In fact that's yet another argument against Richard murdering his nephews - far too much guilt for a man like him, and not even a dcent burial for them. No Richard couldn't have lived with that. H From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2014, 11:19 Subject: Re: Anyone subscribe to The Times online?
I very much doubt it, and if Henry VII did feel any guilt, I'm sure
mother would have slapped it out of him!
Paul

On 15/12/2014 17:23, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Well I, as
you will know, have a certain sympathy for our George but I'm
not with Hicks!
On the
Shakespeare topic, did anyone see Jeremy Irons on Henry IVs (I
& II) and Henry V? He was very good at pointing out how
Shakespeare purposely disregarded r subverted history (in
this case Holinshed) for dramatic impact. What he was also
good at was emphasising the underlying guilt felt by Henry IV
at deposing an annointed king. One couldn't help thinking that
the reason Henry VII is missing from the history plays is that
it would have been exactly the same thing. H

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@...
[]"
<>
To:
"<>"
<>
Sent:
Monday, 15 December 2014, 16:52
Subject:
Re: Anyone subscribe to The
Times online?

Thank you Paul, that is reassuring!





On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Paul Trevor
Bale
bale475@...
[] <>
wrote:

He's in love with George of
Clarence, and has always believed
Shakespeare.....poor thing! :-)
The more he comes out with such
nonsense, the fewer will listen to
anything he says.
Paul

On
15/12/2014 16:20, Pamela Bain
pbain@...
[] wrote:
Oh my, oh my.......REALLY, how
could he even posit such nonsense?



On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM,
janmulrenan@...
[] <>
wrote:

Dear
Sandra & all Forum
members,
Jan
here.
This
is what appeared in
today's newsprint edition
of the Times in response
to Professor Hicks's
letter, which I didn't
keep because I had read
his arguments somewhere
before.
Richard's
skeleton
Sir,
Professor Hicks, in his
letter [Dec 5] commenting
on our research findings,
suggests that the skeleton
found in Leicester is not
that of Richard III.
He states that
there are lots of
candidates yet seems
unable to specify one who
ticks all the boxes
[buried in the choir of
Greyfriars, battle
injuries, aged mid-30s,
same mitochondrial DNA
{mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]
He overlooks the
fact that the publication
represents a detailed
analysis of Richard's
maternal-line relatives
across seven generations
in order to account for
others sharing the same
mtDNA type through known
relation  and that this
mtDNA type is exceedingly
rare and therefore highly
unlikely to have shown a
match by chance.
Hicks
also claims that we
presumed the bones to be
those of Richard and
sought only supporting
evidence.
A cursory reading
of the paper and an
examination of our
statistical analyses makes
it abundantly clear that
the opposite is true.
We considered all
relevant lines of evidence
and made every effort to
weight the analysis
against the remains being
those of Richard III, yet
still produce a highly
conservative probability
of 99.9994 per cent in
favour.
Lastly, Hicks
refers to wild
accusations of bastardy.
Nowhewere do
we make any such
accusations.
T.King,
University of Leicester
MG
Thomas, UCL
K
Schürer, University of
Leicester
Sent from Windows Mail
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@...
[]
Sent: Monday,
15 December 2014
08:11
To:
There is a
letter in today's
edition of the
above newspaper
that concerns what
Hicks says about
the remains in
Leicester NOT
being those of
Richard. We know
he says this, of
course, but I
don't subscribe to
the paper and so
cannot read the
letter. Can't
anyone on here?
It's at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14
Sandra
=^..^=

I agree about Henry VII being haunted. But I also think Edward IV felt guilty about Clarence's death, at least Crowland says he did. I sometimes wonder whether the reason he avoided hosting the annual Garter bash at Windsor after that was because he couldn't bear either to have someone else sit in Clarence's stall or see it emptily reproaching him. He kept trying to give Clarence's place away to foreign heads of state but without much success. (Cursed chair, anyone? Only one recent careful owner.)I can't see Richard just doing away with Edward's sons and hiding the bodies: not his style. Whatever happened, it was far more complicated than that.Marie

I agree. Is there any chance that that attempt to rescue the boys in the summer of 1483 actually did succeed - engineered by EW, MB, Buckingham, or who knows? It wouldn't be that difficult to use another couple of boys for a while to make it look as though they were still there and calm things down whilst Richard frantically searched, after all we're not in the days of the media, few would have known what EV looked like he'd been at Ludlow and kids grow so fast anyway. I truly don't think Richard (or Henry) actually knew what had happened to them - just as we still don't. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2014, 14:20 Subject: Re: Anyone subscribe to The Times online?
I agree about Henry VII being haunted. But I also think Edward IV felt guilty about Clarence's death, at least Crowland says he did. I sometimes wonder whether the reason he avoided hosting the annual Garter bash at Windsor after that was because he couldn't bear either to have someone else sit in Clarence's stall or see it emptily reproaching him. He kept trying to give Clarence's place away to foreign heads of state but without much success. (Cursed chair, anyone? Only one recent careful owner.)I can't see Richard just doing away with Edward's sons and hiding the bodies: not his style. Whatever happened, it was far more complicated than that.Marie

Hilary wrote :"On the Shakespeare topic, did anyone see Jeremy Irons on Henry IVs (I & II) and Henry V? He was very good at pointing out how Shakespeare purposely disregarded r subverted history (in this case Holinshed) for dramatic impact. What he was also good at was emphasising the underlying guilt felt by Henry IV at deposing an annointed king. One couldn't help thinking that the reason Henry VII is missing from the history plays is that it would have been exactly the same thing."
Carol responds:Either that or nothing sufficiently dramatic happened during Henry's reign except the appearance of Perkin Warbeck and other Yorkist claimants, an unsafe topic for a playwright writing under the Tudors. A penny-pinching, noble-crushing king couldn't be made into a hero or anti-hero. Just a thought.Carol

And of course we couldn't have Henry fretting over Richard - Shakespeare was writing for a Tudor queen. Had it not been that then he could have turned young Henry VIII into another Prince Hal. From: "justcarol67@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2014, 15:54 Subject: Re: Anyone subscribe to The Times online?
Hilary wrote :"On the Shakespeare topic, did anyone see Jeremy Irons on Henry IVs (I & II) and Henry V? He was very good at pointing out how Shakespeare purposely disregarded r subverted history (in this case Holinshed) for dramatic impact. What he was also good at was emphasising the underlying guilt felt by Henry IV at deposing an annointed king. One couldn't help thinking that the reason Henry VII is missing from the history plays is that it would have been exactly the same thing."
Carol responds:Either that or nothing sufficiently dramatic happened during Henry's reign except the appearance of Perkin Warbeck and other Yorkist claimants, an unsafe topic for a playwright writing under the Tudors. A penny-pinching, noble-crushing king couldn't be made into a hero or anti-hero. Just a thought.Carol

Jan here. When a play was written it didn't star Henry either.I quote Wikipedia, as a start:Perkin Warbeck is a Caroline era history play by John Ford. It is generally ranked as one of Ford's three masterpieces, along with 'Tis Pity She's a Whore and The Broken Heart. T. S. Eliot went so far as to call Perkin Warbeck "unquestionably Ford's highest achievement...one of the very best historical plays outside of the works of Shakespeare in the whole of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama."[1]Ford wrote it somewhere between 1629 & 1634, sticking close to his sources who were Francis Bacon & Thomas Gainsford. I know nothing about Gainsford yet.'Tis Pity has just been showing at the Sam Wanamaker & I got to see it thanks to my son buying tickets. On 16 Dec 2014, at 15:54, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary wrote :"On the Shakespeare topic, did anyone see Jeremy Irons on Henry IVs (I & II) and Henry V? He was very good at pointing out how Shakespeare purposely disregarded r subverted history (in this case Holinshed) for dramatic impact. What he was also good at was emphasising the underlying guilt felt by Henry IV at deposing an annointed king. One couldn't help thinking that the reason Henry VII is missing from the history plays is that it would have been exactly the same thing."
Carol responds:Either that or nothing sufficiently dramatic happened during Henry's reign except the appearance of Perkin Warbeck and other Yorkist claimants, an unsafe t
opic for a playwright writing under the Tudors. A penny-pinching, noble-crushing king couldn't be made into a hero or anti-hero. Just a thought.Carol

Agree Hilary it is entirely possible, however, I can't see MB allowing them to live if she was involved. Also why would EW "rescue" the boys and then allow her daughters to live at court. Mary

I truly haven't any answers. Things changed so much over the two years before Richard's death. If EW (without MB or Buckingham) did somehow achieve a rescue, after the spring of 1484 only Richard stood between the throne for her boys. She would know that he was not wholly well and might not have expected him to live long. Either way she covered her options, through her daughter Elizabeth or through waiting. I doubt many people, including the French, though HT would ever win. It would also explain rumours around her involvement in the Lambert Simnel plot. But I really am thinking on the hoof. Buckingham was either very clever or mad as a box of frogs and who knows whether he was up to something. I tend to discount MB because if she'd known you'd have been sure Henry would too and he clearly didn't know. H From: "maryfriend@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2014, 20:26 Subject: Re: Anyone subscribe to The Times online?
Agree Hilary it is entirely possible, however, I can't see MB allowing them to live if she was involved. Also why would EW "rescue" the boys and then allow her daughters to live at court. Mary