Secrets of the Dead Resurrecting Richard

   I bought this DVD, watched it and donated it to the public library. Now, I distinctly remember John Ashdown Hill stating that Dr.Argentine was treating Edward V for a jaw infection. In his books, though he says the opposite.  One of the jaws among those bones found in the tower showed signs of osteitis or osteomyelitis. What gives,?

Karen.no..this is the thing. . No where does it say that Dr Argentine was treating Edward for a jaw infection. One of the writers of the time..I dont have time at this minute to find out which one..wrote that Dr Argentine had said the boy was melancholy and worried for his life. Typical teenager. Annette Carson has also argued in her book that if Edward had this particular disease of the jaw which the jaw in the urn has, it was extremely painful and everybody would have noticed that the heir to the throne had it. This is one pointer that indicates that the jaw/bones in the urn are not those of Edward of Westminster and Richard of Shrewsbury. Hope this helps.

Yes I knew all that. I'm just so puzzled that John would say this. On May 9, 2017 1:29 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
 
Karen.no..this is the thing. .  No where does it say that Dr Argentine was treating Edward for a jaw infection.  One of the writers of the time..I dont have time at this minute to find out which one..wrote that Dr Argentine had said the boy was melancholy and worried for his life.  Typical teenager.  Annette Carson has also argued in her book that if Edward had this particular disease of the jaw which the jaw in the urn has, it was extremely painful and everybody would have noticed that the heir to the throne had it.  This is one pointer that indicates that  the jaw/bones in the urn are not those of Edward of Westminster and Richard of Shrewsbury.  Hope this helps.

Its something to do with 'new evidence' that he has added on to his book Eleanor the Secret Queen. I would have to re-read it to be precise which I cant do at this moment.

Well said Eileen. The Dr Argentine story is another one of those used to try and prove the bones are those of the sons of Edward IV, instead of possibly a Roman girl or even a pig, both of which are possible.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 9 mai 2017 à 19:29, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
Karen.no..this is the thing. . No where does it say that Dr Argentine was treating Edward for a jaw infection. One of the writers of the time..I dont have time at this minute to find out which one..wrote that Dr Argentine had said the boy was melancholy and worried for his life. Typical teenager. Annette Carson has also argued in her book that if Edward had this particular disease of the jaw which the jaw in the urn has, it was extremely painful and everybody would have noticed that the heir to the throne had it. This is one pointer that indicates that the jaw/bones in the urn are not those of Edward of Westminster and Richard of Shrewsbury. Hope this helps.

Paul or even a 17th century hoax. Helen Maurer has suggested this in her excellent articles The Bones in the Tower/Whodunit. Something to do with Charles ll finding he was not as popular as he would have liked..

There is nothing historically to suggest that Edward V had a disease of the jaw or any serious illness at all. When he was at Stony Stratford, many people saw him and there were no reports that he looked or behaved as if he were ill. Someone with that skeleton's condition would have been in considerable pain. As Eileen says, if he did have something as serious as osteomylitis, there would have been some record of the heir to the throne receiving medical treatment, as accounts for Edward IV's reign have survived. What John Ashdown-Hill is talking about is congenitally missing teeth. Alison Weir drew attention to the fact that both Anne Mowbray and the Tower skeletons had congenitally missing teeth. J-AH is arguing the Richard III did not have this condition and speculates that Anne Mowbray inherited from another line. The skeleton in Norwich Castle believed to be Eleanor (Anne Mowbray's aunt) also has congenitally missing teeth, so he believes that it was passed through a line that was relevant to both of them, but not the Princes in the Tower. Therefore, this is an indication that the Tower skeletons are not the Princes. Nico On Tuesday, 9 May 2017, 18:44, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Paul or even a 17th century hoax. Helen Maurer has suggested this in her excellent articles The Bones in the Tower/Whodunit. Something to do with Charles ll finding he was not as popular as he would have liked..

Thanks for reminding me Nico. I still feel that its quite a long shot though as an argument that the bones are not those of Edward and Richard. Not everyone in a family would have had this condition. I may be missing something here.

I know all of that too. Maybe he just misspoke. On May 10, 2017 4:32 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
 
There is nothing historically to suggest that Edward V had a disease of the jaw or any serious illness at all.  When he was at Stony Stratford, many people saw him and there were no reports that he looked or behaved as if he were ill.  Someone with that skeleton's condition would have been in considerable pain.  As Eileen says, if he did have something as serious as osteomylitis, there would have been some record of the heir to the throne receiving medical treatment, as accounts for Edward IV's reign have survived.  What John Ashdown-Hill is talking about is congenitally missing teeth.  Alison Weir drew attention to the fact that both Anne Mowbray and the Tower skeletons had congenitally missing teeth.  J-AH is arguing the Richard III did not have this condition and speculates that Anne Mowbray inherited from another line.  The skeleton in Norwich Castle believed to be Eleanor (Anne Mowbray's aunt) also has congenitally missing teeth, so he believes that it was passed through a line that was relevant to both of them, but not the Princes in the Tower.  Therefore, this is an indication that the Tower skeletons are not the Princes.  Nico On Tuesday, 9 May 2017, 18:44, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Paul or even a 17th century hoax.  Helen Maurer has suggested this in her excellent articles The Bones in the Tower/Whodunit.  Something to do with Charles ll finding he was not as popular as he would have liked..

JA-H didn’t mis-speak – some people have
misunderstood him.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 10 May 2017 13:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Secrets of the Dead Resurrecting Richard


I know all of that too. Maybe he just misspoke.

On May 10, 2017 4:32 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@...
[]" <>
wrote:

There
is nothing historically to suggest that Edward V had a disease of the jaw or
any serious illness at all. When he was at Stony Stratford, many people
saw him and there were no reports that he looked or behaved as if he were
ill. Someone with that skeleton's condition would have been in
considerable pain. As Eileen says, if he did have something as serious as
osteomylitis, there would have been some record of the heir to the throne
receiving medical treatment, as accounts for Edward IV's reign have
survived. What John Ashdown-Hill is talking about is congenitally missing
teeth. Alison Weir drew attention to the fact that both Anne Mowbray and
the Tower skeletons had congenitally missing teeth. J-AH is arguing the
Richard III did not have this condition and speculates that Anne Mowbray
inherited from another line. The skeleton in
Norwich Castle
believed to be Eleanor (Anne Mowbray's aunt) also has congenitally missing
teeth, so he believes that it was passed through a line that was relevant to
both of them, but not the Princes in the Tower. Therefore, this is an
indication that the Tower skeletons are not the Princes.

Nico



On
Tuesday, 9 May 2017, 18:44, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com
[]" <@ yahoogroups.com>
wrote:



Paul
or even a 17th century hoax. Helen Maurer has suggested this in her
excellent articles The Bones in the Tower/Whodunit. Something to do with
Charles ll finding he was not as popular as he would have liked..

I know all of that too. Maybe he just misspoke. On May 10, 2017 4:32 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
 
There is nothing historically to suggest that Edward V had a disease of the jaw or any serious illness at all.  When he was at Stony Stratford, many people saw him and there were no reports that he looked or behaved as if he were ill.  Someone with that skeleton's condition would have been in considerable pain.  As Eileen says, if he did have something as serious as osteomylitis, there would have been some record of the heir to the throne receiving medical treatment, as accounts for Edward IV's reign have survived.  What John Ashdown-Hill is talking about is congenitally missing teeth.  Alison Weir drew attention to the fact that both Anne Mowbray and the Tower skeletons had congenitally missing teeth.  J-AH is arguing the Richard III did not have this condition and speculates that Anne Mowbray inherited from another line.  The skeleton in Norwich Castle believed to be Eleanor (Anne Mowbray's aunt) also has congenitally missing teeth, so he believes that it was passed through a line that was relevant to both of them, but not the Princes in the Tower.  Therefore, this is an indication that the Tower skeletons are not the Princes.  Nico On Tuesday, 9 May 2017, 18:44, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Paul or even a 17th century hoax.  Helen Maurer has suggested this in her excellent articles The Bones in the Tower/Whodunit.  Something to do with Charles ll finding he was not as popular as he would have liked..

  If I have misunderstood that is why I am asking. How did I misunderstand? I'm willing to accept that I did but he was clear as a bell in that DVD.  On May 10, 2017 8:39 AM, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:
 

JA-H didn't mis-speak  some people have
misunderstood him.
 
From:
@ yahoogroups.com
[mailto: @yahoogroups.com]

Sent: 10 May 2017 13:36
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Secrets of the Dead Resurrecting Richard
 
 
I know all of that too. Maybe he just misspoke.
 
On May 10, 2017 4:32 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@...
[]" <@ yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
 
There
is nothing historically to suggest that Edward V had a disease of the jaw or
any serious illness at all.  When he was at Stony Stratford, many people
saw him and there were no reports that he looked or behaved as if he were
ill.  Someone with that skeleton's condition would have been in
considerable pain.  As Eileen says, if he did have something as serious as
osteomylitis, there would have been some record of the heir to the throne
receiving medical treatment, as accounts for Edward IV's reign have
survived.  What John Ashdown-Hill is talking about is congenitally missing
teeth.  Alison Weir drew attention to the fact that both Anne Mowbray and
the Tower skeletons had congenitally missing teeth.  J-AH is arguing the
Richard III did not have this condition and speculates that Anne Mowbray
inherited from another line.  The skeleton in Norwich Castle
believed to be Eleanor (Anne Mowbray's aunt) also has congenitally missing
teeth, so he believes that it was passed through a line that was relevant to
both of them, but not the Princes in the Tower.  Therefore, this is an
indication that the Tower skeletons are not the Princes. 
 
Nico
 
 
 
On
Tuesday, 9 May 2017, 18:44, "cherryripe.eileenb@googlemail .com
[]" <@yahoog roups.com>
wrote:
 
 

Paul
or even a 17th century hoax.  Helen Maurer has suggested this in her
excellent articles The Bones in the Tower/Whodunit.  Something to do with
Charles ll finding he was not as popular as he would have liked..
 

Karen
wrote:
I bought this DVD, watched it and donated it to the public library.
Now, I distinctly remember John Ashdown Hill stating that Dr.Argentine was
treating Edward V for a jaw infection. In his books, though he says the
opposite.
One of the jaws among those bones found in the tower showed signs of
osteitis or osteomyelitis. What gives,?
Doug here:
To the best of my knowledge, the idea that Dr. Argentine was treating
Edward V for a jaw infection is based solely on the discoloration of the bone
found in the Tower. There is no contemporary evidence that Dr.
Argentine was treating Edward V for anything, let alone a jaw
infection.
I have no idea when the DVD was made, but it seems likely that Ashdown-Hill
simply corrected an earlier misapprehension.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen wrote:

"If I have misunderstood that is why I am asking. How did I misunderstand? I'm willing to accept that I did but he was clear as a bell in that DVD. "

Carol responds:

Hi, Karen. Can you tell us which DVD? Are you sure it was JAH? What exactly did he say? The passage Eileen was referring to concerning Dr. Argentine saying that young Edward was melancholy is in Mancini (the only contemporary or near-contemporary chronicle that mentions Dr. Argentine). No contemporary document mentions a jaw infection or anything at all about his health--as JAH would know.

He discusses congenitally absent teeth in the two skeletons in the urn in "Eleanor: The Secret Queen" and mentions in passing in "The Last Days of Richard III" that the former Edward V could conceivably, like his sister Mary and Brother George, have died young of natural causes by the time that Richard was negotiating for the hand of Joanna of Portugal, but nowhere in the books of his that I have access to does he suggest that ex-EV might have died from an abscessed jaw (or that he believes the skeletons to be those of the "princes").

Carol

Eileen wrote:"Thanks for reminding me Nico. I still feel that its quite a long shot though as an argument that the bones are not those of Edward and Richard. Not everyone in a family would have had this condition. I may be missing something here."Carol responds:JAH's position in short is that Anne Mowbray seems to have inherited the condition from the Talbots (not the Nevilles) and that to find a common ancestor between EIV's sons and Anne M. in that line (the Talbots), we would have to go back to Edward III, too distant a connection to be meaningful. So he's saying that the missing teeth are not strong evidence that "TL1" and "TL2" are Edward and Richard. Again, nothing whatever to do with the abscessed jaw and not an argument for their being Edward's sons. (He's refuting, not supporting, that argument.) See "Secret Queen" for details.Carol

The title is Secrets of the Dead Resurrecting Richard. I know Ashdown Hill s face. I think Weir and Hicks were also on it. Hill's point was that the boy daily expected death because of the jaw infection. I got it on Amazon. On May 10, 2017 5:25 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 
Karen wrote:

"If I have misunderstood that is why I am asking. How did I misunderstand? I'm willing to accept that I did but he was clear as a bell in that DVD. "

Carol responds:

Hi, Karen. Can you tell us which DVD? Are you sure it was JAH? What exactly did he say? The passage Eileen was referring to concerning Dr. Argentine saying that young Edward was melancholy is in Mancini (the only contemporary or near-contemporary chronicle that mentions Dr. Argentine). No contemporary document mentions a jaw infection or anything at all about his health--as JAH would know.

He discusses congenitally absent teeth in the two skeletons in the urn in "Eleanor: The Secret Queen" and mentions in passing in "The Last Days of Richard III" that the former Edward V could conceivably, like his sister Mary and Brother George, have died young of natural causes by the time that Richard was negotiating for the hand of Joanna of Portugal, but nowhere in the books of his that I have access to does he suggest that ex-EV might have died from an abscessed jaw (or that he believes the skeletons to be those of the "princes").

Carol

This is on Utube..44 minutes long. I'll take a look later tonight..