The 'Princes' Bones

Hopefully, now that a female line descendant of Margaret Woodville has been located, the Queen will change her mind about examining the bones, so we can solve this mystery once and for all.
Nico

https://www.essex.ac.uk/news/2018/07/11/research-reveals-dna-of-the-%E2%80%98princes-in-the-tower%E2%80%99

I imagine the queen knows those bones aren't anything to do with the sons of Edward IV and will still refuse permission. They were found in the wrong place, as according to More they were buried then later dug up and moved, so finding them where the priest is supposed to have initially buried them means whoever found them during the reign of Charles II and used More as a source hadn't read all of his More. Also they could be a female Roman, Saxon, or Norman.Is it worth it I ask myself? We all now Richard did not murder his nephews in the Tower and then have some unnamed priest bury them close to the supposed scene of the crime, in a busy community where a few hundred people lived and might have noticed some digging in the middle of the night. Then dig them up again and move them somewhere not named! Well the guards would have heard the digging if nobody else. And if you kill someone in the Tower and want to disappear the bodies there was this thing called the river Thames running conveniently past the walls!Then again, if by some really really really weird turn of fate the bones fit into the time window and the dna links them to the Woodvilles, we still would have no idea who killed them, and probably how they were killed. So would it actually get us anywhere? Only if it is proved the bones are not two young boys who died in the 1480s. Then the mystery will grow, but the lie on that piece of stone in the Abbey will have to be removed.Paul

On 18 Jul 2018, at 15:19, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hopefully, now that a female line descendant of Margaret Woodville has been located, the Queen will change her mind about examining the bones, so we can solve this mystery once and for all.
Nico

https://www.essex.ac.uk/news/2018/07/11/research-reveals-dna-of-the-%E2%80%98princes-in-the-tower%E2%80%99

Paul wrote:

"I imagine the queen knows those bones aren't anything to do with the sons of Edward IV and will still refuse permission. They were found in the wrong place, as according to More they were buried then later dug up and moved, so finding them where the priest is supposed to have initially buried them means whoever found them during the reign of Charles II and used More as a source hadn't read all of his More."

Carol responds:

And hadn't read even that portion carefully as ten feet deep *under the foundations of a staircase* is not the same as "meetly deep" in the ground (about three feet?) at the foot of a staircase under a great heap of stones even if the conveniently dead anonymous priest had really originally buried them there (but told only Richard, who ordered him to move them to sacred ground, no one knows where). The whole story is so full of holes that it's ridiculous. Even if it were true, how would More (or Morton) know any of it?

I agree that the skeletons could be any children (male or female) who happened to be buried there, but certainly not Richard's nephews, who could not possibly have been secretly buried in that location, certainly not by a single priest in a single night.

Carol

Paul wrote:Is it worth it I ask myself? We all now Richard did not murder his nephews in the Tower and then have some unnamed priest bury them close to the supposed scene of the crime, in a busy community where a few hundred people lived and might have noticed some digging in the middle of the night. Then dig them up again and move them somewhere not named! Well the guards would have heard the digging if nobody else. And if you kill someone in the Tower and want to disappear the bodies there was this thing called the river Thames running conveniently past the walls!Then again, if by some really really really weird turn of fate the bones fit into the time window and the dna links them to the Woodvilles, we still would have no idea who killed them, and probably how they were killed. So would it actually get us anywhere? Only if it is proved the bones are not two young boys who died in the 1480s. Then the mystery will grow, but the lie on that piece of stone in the Abbey will have to be removed.


A good question, but it looks like we may finally be able to get an answer one way or the other which could end the debate once and for all. Personally, I there is very little or no chance that they are the Princes, so it can only be a step forward as it could encourage some people to reconsider their perspectives - Michael Hicks, Alison Weir, Dan Jones and the many readers who think their books are some sort of historical gospel. The bones could also be given a respectful burial, rather than being a tourist attraction symbolizing two boys who they never were and a murder that probably never happened. In the unlikely event that they were identified as the Princes, it doesn't mean that Richard did it (although I admit it may for some lend More's account an unfair credibility, which we will have to continue to refute), but the Princes could finally have a proper Christian burial, requiem mass and a memorial. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the Queen is unlikely to change her mind, but maybe Charles or William will feel differently.
Nico

On Thursday, 19 July 2018, 17:51:03 GMT+1, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote:

"I imagine the queen knows those bones aren't anything to do with the sons of Edward IV and will still refuse permission. They were found in the wrong place, as according to More they were buried then later dug up and moved, so finding them where the priest is supposed to have initially buried them means whoever found them during the reign of Charles II and used More as a source hadn't read all of his More."

Carol responds:

And hadn't read even that portion carefully as ten feet deep *under the foundations of a staircase* is not the same as "meetly deep" in the ground (about three feet?) at the foot of a staircase under a great heap of stones even if the conveniently dead anonymous priest had really originally buried them there (but told only Richard, who ordered him to move them to sacred ground, no one knows where). The whole story is so full of holes that it's ridiculous. Even if it were true, how would More (or Morton) know any of it?

I agree that the skeletons could be any children (male or female) who happened to be buried there, but certainly not Richard's nephews, who could not possibly have been secretly buried in that location, certainly not by a single priest in a single night.

Carol

Interesting conversation. I used to believe the bones could possibly be the lost Princes until I first read modern analysis of the report by Tanner and Wright and saw how many holes there are. While their examination in 1933 was no doubt as scientific and extensive as it could be given the tools at the time, there are questions which simply could not be reliably answered in 1933. The two doctors would also have come to the table with a pre assumption, intended or not, that these two children were the bones of the Princes as they didn't come blind to examine them, but knew their sources and that a previous, if somewhat dubious examination in 1674 had identified them as Edward V and Prince Richard. Unfortunately, a modern examination would have the same problem and could not be totally without bias.

I have recently been reading the last book by the late Dr John Ashdown Hill and the full report as an appendix. There are several questions that have been raised since 1933 which challenge the conclusion that the ages, sex and even the number of individuals present is conclusive. For one thing it was very convenient to name them as the alleged murdered boys in 1674, because the Stuart Government was in crisis and they needed a distraction from that with the ceremony of burials of two Royal children. The bones were of course found in the wrong location, as More states that the boys were moved to a more suitable burial place. Where they put in the Norman Chapel, for example? The Urn was made, the bones deposited and it was declared they are the lost Princes.

Without going into a long winded account, as you may be reading the book yourselves, basically, there are questions on whether or not the boys are even related to Richard iii as there is a question mark over congenital missing teeth, which are inherited, there are questions over the difference in ages, the cause of death, at present assumed to be suffocation as there is an alleged blood stain, which frankly was not tested so never confirmed, there are questions over the sex as this is not clear on closer examination and of course nobody could say when the children died in 1933. Tanner concluded that the ages were consistent with the ages of each Prince, but could we really be that certain in 1933?

These are not the only bones thought to be the so called Princes, for in 1647, two children, a little younger were believed to be them, the bones of an ape has been claimed, in the reign of Elizabeth I bones were also found and a great cash of bones found in Victorian times sparked another debate on the authenticity of those in the Urn. The inclusion of so many animal bones, chicken, duck, sheep, fish, so on, makes one wonder if the bones date back to the Iron Age, or they could simply have come from the kitchen drains and been gathered up along the years. The workmen threw the bones onto a rubbish heap, so how much contamination is there? How many bones were lost? Are there two or more individuals? When JAH opened the Clarence vault for examination in 2013 there were found to be the remains of three individuals. All these questions remain and cast doubt on the identification of these remains of two Princes who vanished in 1483.

An all female line to Margaret Woodville was traced earlier this year so maybe we can now answer some questions with DNA. A second line is currently being investigated but has not yet been confirmed or published. DNA could tell us if these children are related to each other and to their alleged killer. It can help to confirm sex and age. We will know more about them as individuals. We can now with far more certainty place them back into an historic era and estimates of when they died and ages can be better established. We can't say for certain if they died in 1483/4/5/6 or later but we can go within 30 years. Unfortunately, that is not much help in establishing Richard as innocent or guilty. Even if we can say how they died, who will remain a mystery. However, we should be able to at least say if they are brothers and related to King Richard iii. This is in a perfect scientific world of course, but it is also very possible that the DNA is contaminated and can't be separated. It is possible no DNA at all will be available for full analysis because the bones may be too badly preserved. There appeared to be only one actual tooth present from the report and cavities for dental examination alone. This means using teeth for DNA will be practically impossible. However, I personally would like to see attempts to get DNA and give these children as close to a real identification as possible.

At the end of the day we are talking about the bones of two young children, who died before their time, regardless of whether or not they are the lost Princes and we must respect them. Everything must be done with care and sensitive handling. I hope one day a fresh examination of the Urn is allowed, but still feel uneasy at disturbing the peace of these children, yet again.

Loan offer between serious and honest individual
Hello
In the perspective of injecting money into risk-free activities and the constant desire to make my Capital profitable, I offer you facilities at the best conditions.
Capital: Unlimited
Rate: 2% -3% (Varies by industry)
Duration 30 years MAXI
Very short response time: 48 hours.
My conditions are much lightened. Cost relatively light credit to allow you to enjoy this facility according to banking standards.
The target of this offer is, among others, self-employed workers, retired employees, entrepreneurs in the private or parapublic sector, farmers and breeders (professionals and non-professionals), traders and project leaders.
It should also be noted that the first-class beneficiaries of this facility are bank bans, or people whose debt is overdue and must necessarily buy back.If you are interested, please contact us on this email address: valetinamotenegro @ gmail.comOrPretalicialopez@... pretorrichtung@... you can also follow us on tweeter: https://twitter.com/valetinamotene1
Our website: prestamoasturias-96.webself.net/

Maria, thanks for your response and I totally agree. Henry vi had a cult from the time of his death and people loved the bones of Kings who died violently or as martyrs or who may be murdered. Henry was also known to do a lot of praying and one legend had him being killed at prayers so he had holy status. He has a fellowship today called the Lillies and Roses who meet at the Tower in the Norman Chapel he was meant to have died in every May to commemorate his death. Richard ii also had a cult and the bones of Kings have been seen in the same light as saints so I am not surprised some have gone missing as relics. Of course it was our own King Richard who moved Henry vi to the Saint George's Chapel in Windsor with honour.

There are indeed a number of missing bones, listed in the article by Tanner for each child, the workmen may have taken a few, some vanished between 1674 and their burial in 1678 and the chickens and sheep are a mystery. Interestingly when Tanner wrote in 1933 he didn't find any alleged velvet cloth, also part of the myth of these children being the Princes. A scientific new look is certainly needed.

Hi Maria, thanks for your reply. I find that interesting about the bones of Henry vi because he was seen as a saint and even a martyr by many of his Lancaster followers and still has a cult today. Just as religious people kept the bones of saints Kings, especially those who had been murdered or killed in battle or as martyrs were also held as holy and cults grew around them. Henry vi has a memorial service in the Tower of London every May and there is a fellowship dedicated to his memory. The Service is called something like Lillies and Roses and is on or around 21st May. I haven't been but have heard it is very beautiful. While the alleged bones found in 1674 were being kept after they were examined, while they were preparing an Urn to bury them, which was four years later, some actually did vanish, again probably as relics and souvenirs. There is a complete list of what remains, but one thing of interest for me was there was no mention in Tanner and Wright of any mysterious piece of velvet cloth said to be there when the workmen opened the box the children were found in. I think this is a red herring anyway, just another additional myth.

I think you are right about examining them afresh. Their essence moved on many moons ago and it is something that there are no specific Christian or other prohibitions about in handling them, as long as all medical and other sterile precautions are taken. Well, we can only hope something new is found if permission is given, which at present looks like a No.

We also have to recall that these bones were found in the place More says they were first buried, not a place he says the priest later moved them to. So it is much more likely to have been a couple of Roman girls that the sons of Edward IV, who had been removed to a safer place by Richard anyway.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 sept. 2018 à 21:02, quersia12@... [] <> a écrit :

Maria, thanks for your response and I totally agree. Henry vi had a cult from the time of his death and people loved the bones of Kings who died violently or as martyrs or who may be murdered. Henry was also known to do a lot of praying and one legend had him being killed at prayers so he had holy status. He has a fellowship today called the Lillies and Roses who meet at the Tower in the Norman Chapel he was meant to have died in every May to commemorate his death. Richard ii also had a cult and the bones of Kings have been seen in the same light as saints so I am not surprised some have gone missing as relics. Of course it was our own King Richard who moved Henry vi to the Saint George's Chapel in Windsor with honour.

There are indeed a number of missing bones, listed in the article by Tanner for each child, the workmen may have taken a few, some vanished between 1674 and their burial in 1678 and the chickens and sheep are a mystery. Interestingly when Tanner wrote in 1933 he didn't find any alleged velvet cloth, also part of the myth of these children being the Princes. A scientific new look is certainly needed.

Paul, yes, you hit the nail on the head, the alleged bodies, if indeed they existed were moved to a more suitable location. Richard was a deeply pious man and would surely have been tormented by the murder of his nephews, even if he did kill them, which I don't believe for one minute, he would have at least had them moved to a holy place or a secure resting place. I can't see one priest moving them during the night, but a priest could have said a private Mass in the Norman Royal Chapel in the Tower. They could have been buried there, but never found. Not even Henry Vii found any trace of them and he certainly needed them to be dead as it made his claim and his marriage to the "lawful" legitimate York heiress a joke, victory on the battlefield notwithstanding .

Paul wrote :

"We also have to recall that these bones were found in the place More says they were first buried, not a place he says the priest later moved them to. So it is much more likely to have been a couple of Roman girls that the sons of Edward IV, who had been removed to a safer place by Richard anyway."

Carol responds:

Not even in the place More says they were buried. As I've said before, "at the stair foot meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of stones" is not the same thing as ten feet deep under the foundations of a stairway. The first location (especially the stones) would have been impossible to conceal during the interval between informing Richard and reburying them. It's also preposterous: imagine the priest with two little bodies beside him industriously digging the hole, then bringing in all those stones, still undetected, then a few days later removing the stones [which no one has noticed!] and reburying the bodies (presumably carrying the bodies of two boys, ages nine and twelve, separately or together in his arms to the new location), all without anyone noticing anything!

As for the actual location where the bones were found, it would be plain impossible (and totally unnecessary) for him to have dug a ten-foot-deep hole *under the foundations* of a staircase. It took several men several days to reach that location, and they certainly were not working in secret. (Given the location of that staircase, digging there in secret would have been impossible, anyway.)

So, yes, Paul, I agree that the bodies are probably Roman, or at least pre-1066, and as likely to be girls as boys.

But my point is that the location of the bones was made to fit the More story (version 1). It really isn't the same location at all.

And More's story, as we all know, is fiction from start to finish.

Wonder how he interviewed an anonymous dead priest and a "secret page," whose identity wouldn't be secret if More knew it? Not to mention the nonsense about the privy and Sir James Tyrrell lying outside Richard's door.

Carol

Hi Carol, I completely agree, especially when you consider that Thomas More was no more than six at the time of the disappearance of the two boys. Traditional reasoning I have read was that because he was assigned to the household of Archbishop Morton he may have been told this story by him because Morton had ample reasons for blackening Richard iii's name as he was arrested and put in prison by him after the Hastings plot. More then went on to be a young lawyer under Henry Vii and he wrote his story to please his new masters, being close to Henry Viii at the time of its publication. In other words, as you say he made it up from tales he had received during his apprenticeship.

James Tyrell, the man who is reputed to have confessed in 1503 to this terrible deed, was under a death sentence. He was being tried for high treason for his role in connection to the de la Poles and he was meant to have been offered a quick death in return for what he knew about the murder of the two Princes. Henry Tudor had had enough of pretenders claiming to be Richard Duke of York, had beheaded the young Earl of Warwick and then Perkin Warbeck and was more desperate that these boys be confirmed as dead. Tyrell is alleged to have made a confession, to have named two killers and confirmed how the boys died. No confession has ever been found, no confession probably ever existed and these details are probably the same ones adopted for More's unfinished history. Conveniently, Tyrell was also executed. The Tudors had their killer. Richard gave the original orders, Tyrell made the arrangements and these two nasty characters did the evil deed. Nice and neat, but what about the bodies?

As everyone says, the murder might have been possible, but how do you quietly hack your way into a stone staircase, quietly remove rubble, place two large boys into a box and quietly put them under the stairs, then very loudly no doubt, fill in the stairs and hope nobody notices? Then just how does one priest remove them, again with noise and dirt, without anyone hearing or knowledge? Even if you emptied the apartment, the entire complex could not be totally empty and surely to guarantee silence would you not also dispose of the guards or servants who let you in? Even if killing two children during the night was possible, burying them deep under stone would not be any easy quiet job. It all makes for a good tale, to frame a dead warrior King, who is not able to defend himself and to protect the claim of a new King, with a slender claim, because he has married their sister and if those boys were not dead in 1485, then Elizabeth of York was not heir to the throne. If Perkin Warbeck really was Richard, Fourth Duke of York, son of Edward iv, then Henry has just executed his wife's brother. Now he has to get rid of anyone who might know the truth. Did James Tyrell know something that could contradict the official Tudor propaganda or was he just convenient as the alleged killer because he was the loyal servant of Richard iii, was in London about that time and he was being charged with treason, punishable by hanging, drawing and quartering? Was he granted beheading if he took the blame for a murder which had never happened and blamed his late master, so as Henry Tudor could rest easy in his bed? Did More, then a young lawyer, record the tale from his lips and then keep it for his history? A lot of unknown answers and speculation, but it is more plausible than the official version that some historians accept, without even looking with scrutiny at the evidence. The bones in the Urn were found in the wrong place, even by More's account and it is simply not possible that they were placed there in 1483-85, not without one big noisy mess anyway. The bones found in 1674 have to be older, Roman or Iron Age, or placed there as a new staircase was being built over them. It is obviously a sad set of affairs that two children died but death was present for many people at an early age. They may even have been buried there as a symbol of some religious ceremony from the time. However, I don't think they are our two missing Prince Richard and Edward V, but I hope the Lost Princes Project gets to the truth one day.