Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter

Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the riddle of the Tower' -
John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair
believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the museum in Bury St
Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on further "But there are
several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum stuff are trying to find
a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of Westminster, the Very
Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the sarcophagus in the Abbey
to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented & allowed furher testing on the
bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes we would be no nearer
to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were found out - on the basis
of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a result that would be! That
would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from whereever they have
them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
Eileen

Eileen:

You mentioned that you do not believe the bones to be those of the
princes. I'm interested to learn how you formed that opinion.

My vantage point in the US limits my access to all the research, so
I must be educated by those willing to elucidate their positions.

Thank you!

Patti
Tulsa, OK
USA

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock
the riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis
of a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the
museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes
on further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket &
museum stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of
Westminster, the Very
> Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the
sarcophagus in the Abbey
> to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented &
allowed furher testing on the
> bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes
we would be no nearer
> to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were
found out - on the basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a
result that would be! That
> would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from
whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> Eileen
>

In defense of the Dean, I think there is a concern that opening the
sarcophagus would give rise to a spate of demands for the opening of all
kinds of tombs deemed to be of interest for one reason or another.
Attending such interest is the sniffing about of the Tabloid press that
always has a field day with this kind of stuff. Instead of solving a
puzzle, we would simply be left with a sideshow.

In addition there is the responsibility that repositories have for
acting as stewards for those who cannot speak for themselves. In other
words, the dead need an advocate on behalf of their dignity.

Then there is the old chestnut, still believed by some people, that the
body can only be resurrected if it is complete and untampered with.
Don't know how prevalent this belief is these days.

I know that these aren't the best answers, but I do think the man's
motives are pure. And these arguments certainly did not stop people from
opening tombs in the past.

eileen wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the
> riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of a
> locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the
> museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on
> further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum
> stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of
> Westminster, the Very
> Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the
> sarcophagus in the Abbey
> to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented & allowed
> furher testing on the
> bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes we
> would be no nearer
> to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were found
> out - on the basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a result
> that would be! That
> would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from
> whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> Eileen
>
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the
riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of
a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the
museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on
further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum
stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it".


The hair would be useful for DNA analysis only if some of the root
was included. Hair, per se. does not contain DNA. Since a lock of
hair normally was cut from the head, it usually does not contain any
roots.

Katy

goto
www.dailymail.co.uk
put "tower" in the search field. the article came up as #9. i.e.
The hair that could unlock the riddle of the Princes in the Tower
there is a discussion/opinion section below the article. click view all.
there are comments on hair shaft dna.

roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the
riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of
a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the
museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on
further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum
stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it".

The hair would be useful for DNA analysis only if some of the root
was included. Hair, per se. does not contain DNA. Since a lock of
hair normally was cut from the head, it usually does not contain any
roots.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The hair would be useful for DNA analysis only if some of the root
> was included. Hair, per se. does not contain DNA. Since a lock of
> hair normally was cut from the head, it usually does not contain any
> roots.
>
> Katy

Oh blimey Katy - someone should let them know that before the locket get busted! :-)
Eileen
>

Yes, I saw the article about John this morning and will post it as a
file. Looking forward to meeting him later this month, after
my "Thomas Stafford" talk in Norwich on Saturday.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The hair would be useful for DNA analysis only if some of the
root
> > was included. Hair, per se. does not contain DNA. Since a lock
of
> > hair normally was cut from the head, it usually does not contain
any
> > roots.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Oh blimey Katy - someone should let them know that before the
locket get busted! :-)
> Eileen
> >
>

Eileen wrote:

> but what a result if they were found out - on the
basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I
believe) what a result that would be!
> That would make the traditionists sit up and remove
their heads from whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be
forthcoming.

A few, perhaps, but not many. I'd bet most of the
traditionalists would suddenly "remember" the stories
about Richard having the bodies reburied somewhere
else. :P

If it isn't the princes (which I think it isn't), I'd
be very interested in knowing who it is. Did they
ever even test the age of those bones? I can't
remember if they had the technology for that in the
thirties or not, but I think not.

Take care,
Kat


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Planto bardus populus subsisto sermo!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

In a message dated 3/6/2007 10:34:41 AM Mountain Standard Time,
fayreroze@... writes:

The hair would be useful for DNA analysis only if some of the root
was included. Hair, per se. does not contain DNA. Since a lock of
hair normally was cut from the head, it usually does not contain any
roots.

Katy
================================
Hi, all,

I asked John Ashdown-Hill about this directly, who replied:




Where on earth did you see this Pam? I only know of 1 British national paper
so far carrying the story, though it's been in some local papers and I did a
local tv interview this afternoon (recorded).

There are no hair roots, but you don't need roots for mtDNA - only for
nuclear DNA.
Best wishes
John
====================================
LML,
Pam

<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com

Neither age or sex could be established when they were looked at in
the 1930s. So they could belong to two Roman girls for all we know!
Paul

On 6 Mar 2007, at 21:29, Rogue wrote:

> Eileen wrote:
>
>> but what a result if they were found out - on the
> basis
>> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I
> believe) what a result that would be!
>> That would make the traditionists sit up and remove
> their heads from whereever they have
>> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be
> forthcoming.
>
> A few, perhaps, but not many. I'd bet most of the
> traditionalists would suddenly "remember" the stories
> about Richard having the bodies reburied somewhere
> else. :P
>
> If it isn't the princes (which I think it isn't), I'd
> be very interested in knowing who it is. Did they
> ever even test the age of those bones? I can't
> remember if they had the technology for that in the
> thirties or not, but I think not.
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Planto bardus populus subsisto sermo!
>
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
> design.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , "PattiAnnie" <pabernius@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen:
>
> You mentioned that you do not believe the bones to be those of the
> princes. I'm interested to learn how you formed that opinion.
>
> My vantage point in the US limits my access to all the research, so
> I must be educated by those willing to elucidate their positions.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Patti
> Tulsa, OK
> USA

Well Patti I am no historian/academic & I will probably be shot down in flames (again but
do care?) but as you ask for my opinion here it is. By the way are you a newby to the
forum as i have posted my views before (on the bones)? But here goes.

1. I am firmly convinced the boys were not murdered and buried where the bones were
found because it would appear from henry tudors action he never knew the fate of the
boys. And I am sure he wuld have known if they had been murdered by richard,
buckingham or anyone else for that matter because after Richard had died someone surely
would have come forward and enlightened him. I dont think it is possible that the princes
could have been murdered and buried in the Tower, a place teeming with people,
withoutanyone noticing. Surely if Tudor had believed the boys to have been murdered he
would have had the Tower (their last known place they were seen) searched from top to
bottom & any recent building/likely burial places etc., excavated. If he had ordered
searches to be made/people questioned why were the bodies not discovered then. I think
Tudor was greatly troubled throughout his reign by not knowing their whereabouts/fate.
Look at how he was troubled by pretenders. Likewise if Tudor was the murderer he would
surely have produced the bodies whilst proclaiming Richard as the murderer.

2. Again this has been discussed before - Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour - with her
daughter securely Queen of England & a couple of grandchildren to boot you would think
that she would have relaxed & enjoyed the role of queen mother in her twilight years but
what does she do? She puts it all in jeopardy & in fact loses everything by getting involved
with the Lambert Simnel fiasco. Why would she have done something as dangerous as this
- I believe because she had been told that in fact her sons or at least one of them was still
alive. She may have been a few things but stupid! I dont think so. I think Elizabeth
actions of over 500 years ago today speak volumes.

3. Richard himself as we know has been accused of killing his brothers children when in
fact he had no need to do so. Titulus Regius proclaimed them bastards. Some may say
that this could have been revoked at a later stage but Clarence's son young Warwick was
as much as threat as them - Richard did not have him murdered - result no bones.

4. From all the books and many words I have read about Richard over the many years
barring one or two. from what I read I just cannot see a man who would commit such a
crime. & yes I do understand they were murderous times but even so I also believe the
killing of innocent children would have been considered as horrendous as it is today.

5. Who else could be the murderer then? Buckingham? Margaret Beaufort? Morton? If
any of these had been guilty of the crime I am sure Tudor would have known, and again,
would have known the whereabouts of the bodies, been able to produce them proclaiming
Richard as the murderer. But did he No. Why because there were no bones.

Of course Patty this is just my own theory. If you can get hold of it (it may be out of print I
am not sure) do read The Betrayal of Richard 111 by V Lamb. Its very good. I thoroughly
recommend it.
Eileen








>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock
> the riddle of the Tower' -
> > John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis
> of a locket of hair
> > believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the
> museum in Bury St
> > Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes
> on further "But there are
> > several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket &
> museum stuff are trying to find
> > a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of
> Westminster, the Very
> > Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the
> sarcophagus in the Abbey
> > to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> > How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented &
> allowed furher testing on the
> > bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes
> we would be no nearer
> > to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were
> found out - on the basis
> > of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a
> result that would be! That
> > would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from
> whereever they have
> > them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> > Eileen
> >
>

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > but what a result if they were found out - on the
> basis
> > of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I
> believe) what a result that would be!
> > That would make the traditionists sit up and remove
> their heads from whereever they have
> > them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be
> forthcoming.
>
> A few, perhaps, but not many. I'd bet most of the
> traditionalists would suddenly "remember" the stories
> about Richard having the bodies reburied somewhere
> else. :P
>
> If it isn't the princes (which I think it isn't), I'd
> be very interested in knowing who it is. Did they
> ever even test the age of those bones? I can't
> remember if they had the technology for that in the
> thirties or not, but I think not.
>


As I recall from reading about that examination of the bones quite a
while ago, there was no determination of how old the bones were, and
perhaps no way to do so. The entire examinarion is biased -- it was
assumed from the beginning that these were the bones of those poor
li'l "princes." The doctor who examined them did provide some
reasons for his deciding that they were the bones of children,but to
my mind he narrowed the ages of the individuals too closely to be
credible -- would you believe, the owners of the bones were precisely
the ages of Edward asnd Richard!

My theory, for what it's worth, is that the bones are much older and
that they were from a Roman or pre-Roman "foundation sacrifice."
Animals, sometimes children, were sacrificed at key locations in the
foundations of important buildings, walls, and bridges to
symbolically give strength and protection to the structures. The
southeast corner of the White Tower aligns with the corner of the
old outer wall of the Roman fortress at Londinium, which was in turn
built upon an existing Anglo-Saxon fortification.

My notion is that the bones were originally discovered during the
construction of the White Tower in the course of digging for a deeper
and stronger foundation, and were reverently/superstitiously
reinterred near where they were found as the construction
continued. What else to do with them -- they were human and
therefore to be treated with respect, but from their location they
were probably pagan and thus not suitable to be transferred for
hallowed ground for reburial.

There is considerable lore about burial under stairs, by the way. It
carries special significance in sympathetic magic (seeking to
influence objects or events via influencing a symbol or
surrogate...voodoo dolls are an example)...I've forgotten the details
in the 40+ years since I took a comparative religion courses in
college, though.


Katy

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Neither age or sex could be established when they were looked at in
> the 1930s. So they could belong to two Roman girls for all we know!
> Paul


Actually, the shape of the pelvis is different between males and
females, from the birth. As for age, that too can be determined from
the milestones of changes in certain bones -- the fusing of the sutures
of the skull, for example -- and that information existed in the 1930s
and for a long time prior. But not as precisely as I recall the doctor
did during that examination.

Katy

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "PattiAnnie"
<pabernius@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen:
> >
> > You mentioned that you do not believe the bones to be those of
the
> > princes. I'm interested to learn how you formed that opinion.
> >
> > My vantage point in the US limits my access to all the research,
so
> > I must be educated by those willing to elucidate their positions.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Patti
> > Tulsa, OK
> > USA
>
> Well Patti I am no historian/academic & I will probably be shot
down in flames (again but
> do care?) but as you ask for my opinion here it is. By the way are
you a newby to the
> forum as i have posted my views before (on the bones)? But here
goes.
>
> 1. I am firmly convinced the boys were not murdered and buried
where the bones were
> found because it would appear from henry tudors action he never
knew the fate of the
> boys. And I am sure he wuld have known if they had been murdered by
richard,
> buckingham or anyone else for that matter because after Richard had
died someone surely
> would have come forward and enlightened him. I dont think it is
possible that the princes
> could have been murdered and buried in the Tower, a place teeming
with people,
> withoutanyone noticing. Surely if Tudor had believed the boys to
have been murdered he
> would have had the Tower (their last known place they were seen)
searched from top to
> bottom & any recent building/likely burial places etc., excavated.
If he had ordered
> searches to be made/people questioned why were the bodies not
discovered then. I think
> Tudor was greatly troubled throughout his reign by not knowing
their whereabouts/fate.
> Look at how he was troubled by pretenders. Likewise if Tudor was
the murderer he would
> surely have produced the bodies whilst proclaiming Richard as the
murderer.
>
> 2. Again this has been discussed before - Elizabeth Woodville's
behaviour - with her
> daughter securely Queen of England & a couple of grandchildren to
boot you would think
> that she would have relaxed & enjoyed the role of queen mother in
her twilight years but
> what does she do? She puts it all in jeopardy & in fact loses
everything by getting involved
> with the Lambert Simnel fiasco. Why would she have done something
as dangerous as this
> - I believe because she had been told that in fact her sons or at
least one of them was still
> alive. She may have been a few things but stupid! I dont think
so. I think Elizabeth
> actions of over 500 years ago today speak volumes.
>
> 3. Richard himself as we know has been accused of killing his
brothers children when in
> fact he had no need to do so. Titulus Regius proclaimed them
bastards. Some may say
> that this could have been revoked at a later stage but Clarence's
son young Warwick was
> as much as threat as them - Richard did not have him murdered -
result no bones.
>
> 4. From all the books and many words I have read about Richard
over the many years
> barring one or two. from what I read I just cannot see a man who
would commit such a
> crime. & yes I do understand they were murderous times but even so
I also believe the
> killing of innocent children would have been considered as
horrendous as it is today.
>
> 5. Who else could be the murderer then? Buckingham? Margaret
Beaufort? Morton? If
> any of these had been guilty of the crime I am sure Tudor would
have known, and again,
> would have known the whereabouts of the bodies, been able to
produce them proclaiming
> Richard as the murderer. But did he No. Why because there were no
bones.
>
> Of course Patty this is just my own theory. If you can get hold of
it (it may be out of print I
> am not sure) do read The Betrayal of Richard 111 by V Lamb. Its
very good. I thoroughly
> recommend it.
> Eileen
>


Good points. I would add that if it was important to Richard that
the boys be dead, it was important that they *be known* to be dead.

Having them simply disappear was to leave the door open for one or
the other to "return" for the next seven or eight decades. Which is
exactly what happened.

He could have had them murdered easily enough and by a means that
wouldn't leave marks, displayed the bodies in state, given them a
nice funeral, and closed the books on the whole thing. Leaving a
mystery did not benefit him at all.

Katy

Dear Eileen,

Well put! If you had to guess, what do you think
happened to the princes, and if they WERE murdered,
who do you think did the deed? Or, who would have the
most to gain by removing the princes?

Regards,

Rene'

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> My theory, for what it's worth, is that the bones are much older and
> that they were from a Roman or pre-Roman "foundation sacrifice."
> Animals, sometimes children, were sacrificed at key locations in the
> foundations of important buildings, walls, and bridges to
> symbolically give strength and protection to the structures. The
> southeast corner of the White Tower aligns with the corner of the
> old outer wall of the Roman fortress at Londinium, which was in turn
> built upon an existing Anglo-Saxon fortification.
>
>>
> Katy
>
Could be, could be - but here's a thought. Whilst I was re-reading Helen Maurier's article
'Whodunnit - The Suspects in the Case" (by the way if there is anyone on the forum who
has not read this article please make sure you do - it's excellent!) I noticed in her notes at
the end of the article she says, and I quote "As for why the bones should have been
discovered more or less where More said they would be, it might be profitable, if only in
gthe interest of leaving no stone unturned, to forget about Richard, Henry and the late 15c
for the moment & concentrate upon Charles ll& the political pressures & perceived
necessities of the 1670s". Crikey I thought - now wouldnt that be funny - the bones
planted some 200 years later!! I understand there were some animal bones mingled in
with the human bones - now one has to ask oneself - if they were the bodies of the
princes and had been hurredly interred to get rid of the evidence - how on earth did the
situation arise where animal bones got mixed in with them?? Perhaps their pet bunny was
slaughtered at the same time as they were!

Another thought - back then in the 1930s when the bones were examined - I think they
were just absolutely dying/longing for the bones to be those of the princes - much more
sensational than coming to the conclusion they were not.

Of course noone wishes to see the remains of what was once human beings 'mucked'
around with - but these bones are (supposedly) over 500 years old - they are only the
casket the jewel has gone - I think it just might be justifiable, under the circumstances
and for the sake of English history, that these bones could be examined, it happens all the
time. In fact I can recall some years ago when I lived in Kennington, South London, an
entire churchyard was dug up and the occupants shifted to somewhere else, I know not
where,and the church decommissioned (or whatever) and turned into flats/apartments.
Now that is truely shocking but the church had agreed to that & that has happened
countless times to churches in London- so the Dean of Westminster can climb down from
his high horse & stop being a hypocrite. They are quick enough to take money from the
public to enter into a holy place which should be free for everyone and especially for
Londoners.
best wishes Eileen

--- In , Stormysky <stormysky75@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen,
>
> Well put! If you had to guess, what do you think
> happened to the princes, and if they WERE murdered,
> who do you think did the deed? Or, who would have the
> most to gain by removing the princes?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rene'
>
Thank you so much for your kind reply Rene. I usually get told I am wrong, wrong,
wrong. I find your interest in my theories quite touching :-) hee hee
Well as you ask, my theory is that the older prince died (of natural causes sometime after
their 'disappearance') but the younger survived into adulthood. Now I conclude this is the
case because as far as I can remember both the pretenders, that I am aware of, Simnell
and Warbeck both claimed to be the younger prince. Thus the people who knew the true
fate of the boys and had them in their care/protection would have been aware of the
demise of the oldest, Edward. I think that Richard, knowing full well what their fate would
be if Tudor's followers ever got their hands on them would be - a death sentence - had
them sent away to safety and I can think of no better place than Burgundy into the care of
their aunt, Margaret of York/duchess of Burgundy. This could have been acieved easily - a
gateway, now known as Traitors Gate leads straight out into the Thames. I believe it was
Tyrell who took them to safety as it is documented that, I forget the exact wording, that he
undertook a highly important, secret task for Richard. That is why he was executed under
some trumped up charge later on by Tudor. Furthermore I think it is very possible that
Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be - the younger prince, Richard. It pains me to
think that if I am correct then the young Richard suffered a truly terrible fate. If you
compare the images that we have of Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck there is no getting
away from the fact that they are as alike as two peas in a pod. Yes I am aware that Edward
was a tart and slept around and probably had illigitimate children all over the place but I
still think Perkin was young Richard.

Now who do I think would have gained the most from the death of the princes - why
Tudor certainly. Not only would he have gained he would have found it NECESSARY to
have them disposed of - he had married their sister to make his claim stronger to the
throne. If either of the princes had turned up their claim to the throne would have been
stronger than Tudor's or Elizabeth of York. Im sure Tudor's mother and her sidekick
Morton would have been only too willing to point that out to him. But he was certainly not
a stupid man in any case. Unfortunetly Clarences son did not escape Tudors clutches and
died for it (as did his sister in Tudor's son's, Fat Henry, reign I can picture him on his
deathbed extolling young Henry to make sure to get all the Platagenets even women in
their 60's. But that is another story).Now having said all that - I still think Tudor didnt get
the chance to get to the boys and remained in the dark about their whereabouts and I
hope it caused him many sleepless nights!
Oh yes and yet another reason as to why I believe this - Sir William Stanley, closely
connected to Tudor through marriage and who turned the tide in Tudors favour at
Bosworth didnt know either as when the news of the survival of one of Edward's sons
'come blazing across England' (Bacon's words but I love them!) he said that if Warbeck was
truely the son of Edward he would never fight him! He paid the price for this with his life.

Well Rene thats it, thats my theory for wot it is worth.
best wishes Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > My theory, for what it's worth, is that the bones are much older
and
> > that they were from a Roman or pre-Roman "foundation
sacrifice."
> > Animals, sometimes children, were sacrificed at key locations in
the
> > foundations of important buildings, walls, and bridges to
> > symbolically give strength and protection to the structures.
The
> > southeast corner of the White Tower aligns with the corner of
the
> > old outer wall of the Roman fortress at Londinium, which was in
turn
> > built upon an existing Anglo-Saxon fortification.




I should have said "pre-Roman" rather than Anglo-Saxon.




> Could be, could be - but here's a thought. Whilst I was re-reading
Helen Maurier's article
> 'Whodunnit - The Suspects in the Case" (by the way if there is
anyone on the forum who
> has not read this article please make sure you do - it's
excellent!) I noticed in her notes at
> the end of the article she says, and I quote "As for why the bones
should have been
> discovered more or less where More said they would be, it might be
profitable, if only in
> gthe interest of leaving no stone unturned, to forget about
Richard, Henry and the late 15c
> for the moment & concentrate upon Charles ll& the political
pressures & perceived
> necessities of the 1670s". Crikey I thought - now wouldnt that be
funny - the bones
> planted some 200 years later!!


The bones were discovered under the flight of stone steps in the
White Tower that lead from the Medieval royal apartents up to the
chapel of St John. Stairs that would have been in daily use during
the period in question, in other words. They were made of stone
facing over rubble filling, and steep, rising about 15 feet in a run
of 25 or 30 feet. To hide anything under the steps would mean
pulling up one of the stone treads and excavating the tightly-packed
rubble filling the cavity beneath the stairs, or removing some of the
stone facing and digging in from the side, with the possibility of
the stone treads above collapsing into the hole. And of course you
would have to haul away, without leaving a trace, the material that
was displaced by the bodies. Not exactly a job that could be
accomplished in one night with no one noticing. And it's hard to
think of a more conspicuous place to decide to hide some bodies, nor
to later go through the whole process again to dig them up and move
them.

There must have been many many better places to hide a couple of
bodies in the White Tower, even limiting the discussion strictly to
the White Tower per se, which is only a part of the fortification
collectively known as the White Tower. (Is the proper name actually
the Fortress of London?)


I understand there were some animal bones mingled in
> with the human bones - now one has to ask oneself - if they were
the bodies of the
> princes and had been hurredly interred to get rid of the evidence -
how on earth did the
> situation arise where animal bones got mixed in with them??
Perhaps their pet bunny was
> slaughtered at the same time as they were!


Wall -- foundation -- sacrifices were often animals, humans being
reserved for the really important spots.


Katy

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Eileen,
> >
> > Well put! If you had to guess, what do you think
> > happened to the princes, and if they WERE murdered,
> > who do you think did the deed? Or, who would have the
> > most to gain by removing the princes?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rene'
> >
> Thank you so much for your kind reply Rene. I usually get told I
am wrong, wrong,
> wrong. I find your interest in my theories quite touching :-) hee
hee
> Well as you ask, my theory is that the older prince died (of
natural causes sometime after
> their 'disappearance') but the younger survived into adulthood.
Now I conclude this is the
> case because as far as I can remember both the pretenders, that I
am aware of, Simnell
> and Warbeck both claimed to be the younger prince.


I think this is a very important point. No one claiming to be Edward
ever came forward. You would think that if a group wanted to put
forth that they were backing the rightful Plantagenet heir, they
would have said it was Edward. Backing the younger boy would be
asking to be trumped by another group saying they had the elder, the
true heir.

That suggests that somehow it was known at least after Bosworth that
Edward was dead. How this was known is one of the big mysteries.

Katy



Thus the people who knew the true
> fate of the boys and had them in their care/protection would have
been aware of the
> demise of the oldest, Edward. I think that Richard, knowing full
well what their fate would
> be if Tudor's followers ever got their hands on them would be - a
death sentence - had
> them sent away to safety and I can think of no better place than
Burgundy into the care of
> their aunt, Margaret of York/duchess of Burgundy. This could have
been acieved easily - a
> gateway, now known as Traitors Gate leads straight out into the
Thames. I believe it was
> Tyrell who took them to safety as it is documented that, I forget
the exact wording, that he
> undertook a highly important, secret task for Richard. That is why
he was executed under
> some trumped up charge later on by Tudor. Furthermore I think it is
very possible that
> Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be - the younger prince,
Richard. It pains me to
> think that if I am correct then the young Richard suffered a truly
terrible fate. If you
> compare the images that we have of Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck
there is no getting
> away from the fact that they are as alike as two peas in a pod.
Yes I am aware that Edward
> was a tart and slept around and probably had illigitimate children
all over the place but I
> still think Perkin was young Richard.
>
> Now who do I think would have gained the most from the death of the
princes - why
> Tudor certainly. Not only would he have gained he would have
found it NECESSARY to
> have them disposed of - he had married their sister to make his
claim stronger to the
> throne. If either of the princes had turned up their claim to the
throne would have been
> stronger than Tudor's or Elizabeth of York. Im sure Tudor's mother
and her sidekick
> Morton would have been only too willing to point that out to him.
But he was certainly not
> a stupid man in any case. Unfortunetly Clarences son did not
escape Tudors clutches and
> died for it (as did his sister in Tudor's son's, Fat Henry, reign
I can picture him on his
> deathbed extolling young Henry to make sure to get all the
Platagenets even women in
> their 60's. But that is another story).Now having said all that -
I still think Tudor didnt get
> the chance to get to the boys and remained in the dark about their
whereabouts and I
> hope it caused him many sleepless nights!
> Oh yes and yet another reason as to why I believe this - Sir
William Stanley, closely
> connected to Tudor through marriage and who turned the tide in
Tudors favour at
> Bosworth didnt know either as when the news of the survival of one
of Edward's sons
> 'come blazing across England' (Bacon's words but I love them!) he
said that if Warbeck was
> truely the son of Edward he would never fight him! He paid the
price for this with his life.
>
> Well Rene thats it, thats my theory for wot it is worth.
> best wishes Eileen
>

I thought that Lambert Simnell was set up as being Edward Earl of
Warwick, Clarence's son ? Which raises the intriguing question of who
would have ended up on the throne in 1487 if the Battle of Stoke had
gone the other way and Henry Tudor had died in the battle and John de
la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, survived - would Lincoln and Francis
Viscount Lovell have released Edward from the Tower and made him King
Edward (V or VI -- another interesting question ?), perhaps with
Lincoln as Protector, or would Lincoln, as Richard's designated heir,
have become King John II ? Or would Richard Duke of York have
reappeared and become King Richard IV ? (hopefully not as portrayed by
Brian Blessed in Blackadder ;-).

Is the hair of Elizabeth of York & Henry Tudor's daughter Mary the
only available possibility for a DNA comparison with the bones found
in the Tower ? Are there no positively-identifiable remains of other
close relations to Edward's sons that could be accessed - even if it
involved opening a sarcophagus ? Doesn't Elizabeth herself still lie
in her tomb ? Are the last resting place of any of her sisters (or
indeed their mother Elizabeth Woodville) positively known ?

Given the advances in techniques for dating and identifying human
remains since the 1930s, and the considerable popular interest in the
fate of the Princes, there is a strong case for allowing a one-off
opening of graves to allow tests to take place and confirm or deny the
identity of the bones found at the Tower once and for all.

Richard G



--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> Now I conclude this is the case because as far as I can remember
> both the pretenders, that I am aware of, Simnell and Warbeck both
> claimed to be the younger prince.

what about the princes' baby brother, george i think his name was. he died while a toddler. there ya go..full male dna, unless woodville was as ribald as e4.
of course with the decompsition of the bodies the may only be able to glean the mother's dna from those remains...but still a closer kinship than the niece of the princes.

i still don't think the crown will allow the testing on these royal remains. unearthing commoners is one thing, but royalty "is to be respected".
roslyn


rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
I thought that Lambert Simnell was set up as being Edward Earl of
Warwick, Clarence's son ? Which raises the intriguing question of who
would have ended up on the throne in 1487 if the Battle of Stoke had
gone the other way and Henry Tudor had died in the battle and John de
la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, survived - would Lincoln and Francis
Viscount Lovell have released Edward from the Tower and made him King
Edward (V or VI -- another interesting question ?), perhaps with
Lincoln as Protector, or would Lincoln, as Richard's designated heir,
have become King John II ? Or would Richard Duke of York have
reappeared and become King Richard IV ? (hopefully not as portrayed by
Brian Blessed in Blackadder ;-).

Is the hair of Elizabeth of York & Henry Tudor's daughter Mary the
only available possibility for a DNA comparison with the bones found
in the Tower ? Are there no positively-identifiable remains of other
close relations to Edward's sons that could be accessed - even if it
involved opening a sarcophagus ? Doesn't Elizabeth herself still lie
in her tomb ? Are the last resting place of any of her sisters (or
indeed their mother Elizabeth Woodville) positively known ?

Given the advances in techniques for dating and identifying human
remains since the 1930s, and the considerable popular interest in the
fate of the Princes, there is a strong case for allowing a one-off
opening of graves to allow tests to take place and confirm or deny the
identity of the bones found at the Tower once and for all.

Richard G

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> Now I conclude this is the case because as far as I can remember
> both the pretenders, that I am aware of, Simnell and Warbeck both
> claimed to be the younger prince.

--- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I thought that Lambert Simnell was set up as being Edward Earl of
> Warwick, Clarence's son ?

Richard I think Lambert was paraded around first as Richard, Edward's younger son and
then done a turnabout and was put forward as the young Earl of Warwick Clarences son.

It has been suggested that the Yorkists knew full well Lambert was an imposter but they
were just testing the water as it were and did not want to risk, at that stage, the other
'pretender' Warbeck.

Young Lambert kept his head on his shoulders and was later put to work in a kitchen!

regards Eileen


Which raises the intriguing question of who
> would have ended up on the throne in 1487 if the Battle of Stoke had
> gone the other way and Henry Tudor had died in the battle and John de
> la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, survived - would Lincoln and Francis
> Viscount Lovell have released Edward from the Tower and made him King
> Edward (V or VI -- another interesting question ?), perhaps with
> Lincoln as Protector, or would Lincoln, as Richard's designated heir,
> have become King John II ? Or would Richard Duke of York have
> reappeared and become King Richard IV ? (hopefully not as portrayed by
> Brian Blessed in Blackadder ;-).
>
> Is the hair of Elizabeth of York & Henry Tudor's daughter Mary the
> only available possibility for a DNA comparison with the bones found
> in the Tower ? Are there no positively-identifiable remains of other
> close relations to Edward's sons that could be accessed - even if it
> involved opening a sarcophagus ? Doesn't Elizabeth herself still lie
> in her tomb ? Are the last resting place of any of her sisters (or
> indeed their mother Elizabeth Woodville) positively known ?
>
> Given the advances in techniques for dating and identifying human
> remains since the 1930s, and the considerable popular interest in the
> fate of the Princes, there is a strong case for allowing a one-off
> opening of graves to allow tests to take place and confirm or deny the
> identity of the bones found at the Tower once and for all.
>
> Richard G
>
>
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > Now I conclude this is the case because as far as I can remember
> > both the pretenders, that I am aware of, Simnell and Warbeck both
> > claimed to be the younger prince.
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Eileen,
> >
> > Well put! If you had to guess, what do you think
> > happened to the princes, and if they WERE murdered,
> > who do you think did the deed? Or, who would have the
> > most to gain by removing the princes?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rene'
> >
> Thank you so much for your kind reply Rene. I usually get told I
am wrong, wrong,
> wrong. I find your interest in my theories quite touching :-) hee
hee
> Well as you ask, my theory is that the older prince died (of
natural causes sometime after
> their 'disappearance') but the younger survived into adulthood.
Now I conclude this is the
> case because as far as I can remember both the pretenders, that I
am aware of, Simnell
> and Warbeck both claimed to be the younger prince. Thus the people
who knew the true
> fate of the boys and had them in their care/protection would have
been aware of the
> demise of the oldest, Edward. I think that Richard, knowing full
well what their fate would
> be if Tudor's followers ever got their hands on them would be - a
death sentence - had
> them sent away to safety and I can think of no better place than
Burgundy into the care of
> their aunt, Margaret of York/duchess of Burgundy. This could have
been acieved easily - a
> gateway, now known as Traitors Gate leads straight out into the
Thames. I believe it was
> Tyrell who took them to safety as it is documented that, I forget
the exact wording, that he
> undertook a highly important, secret task for Richard. That is why
he was executed under
> some trumped up charge later on by Tudor. Furthermore I think it is
very possible that
> Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be - the younger prince,
Richard. It pains me to
> think that if I am correct then the young Richard suffered a truly
terrible fate. If you
> compare the images that we have of Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck
there is no getting
> away from the fact that they are as alike as two peas in a pod.
Yes I am aware that Edward
> was a tart and slept around and probably had illigitimate children
all over the place but I
> still think Perkin was young Richard.
>
> Now who do I think would have gained the most from the death of the
princes - why
> Tudor certainly. Not only would he have gained he would have
found it NECESSARY to
> have them disposed of - he had married their sister to make his
claim stronger to the
> throne. If either of the princes had turned up their claim to the
throne would have been
> stronger than Tudor's or Elizabeth of York. Im sure Tudor's mother
and her sidekick
> Morton would have been only too willing to point that out to him.
But he was certainly not
> a stupid man in any case. Unfortunetly Clarences son did not
escape Tudors clutches and
> died for it (as did his sister in Tudor's son's, Fat Henry, reign
I can picture him on his
> deathbed extolling young Henry to make sure to get all the
Platagenets even women in
> their 60's. But that is another story).Now having said all that -
I still think Tudor didnt get
> the chance to get to the boys and remained in the dark about their
whereabouts and I
> hope it caused him many sleepless nights!
> Oh yes and yet another reason as to why I believe this - Sir
William Stanley, closely
> connected to Tudor through marriage and who turned the tide in
Tudors favour at
> Bosworth didnt know either as when the news of the survival of one
of Edward's sons
> 'come blazing across England' (Bacon's words but I love them!) he
said that if Warbeck was
> truely the son of Edward he would never fight him! He paid the
price for this with his life.
>
> Well Rene thats it, thats my theory for wot it is worth.
> best wishes Eileen
>
I think you are quite right about the different fates of the
two "Princes". Edward surely died of natural causes and there are
contemporary medical reports. Richard of Shrewsbury is therefore the
only survivor and, when TR was repealed, rightful King.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Eileen,
> >
> > Well put! If you had to guess, what do you think
> > happened to the princes, and if they WERE murdered,
> > who do you think did the deed? Or, who would have the
> > most to gain by removing the princes?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rene'
> >
> Thank you so much for your kind reply Rene. I usually get told I
am wrong, wrong,
> wrong. I find your interest in my theories quite touching :-) hee
hee
> Well as you ask, my theory is that the older prince died (of
natural causes sometime after
> their 'disappearance') but the younger survived into adulthood.
Now I conclude this is the
> case because as far as I can remember both the pretenders, that I
am aware of, Simnell
> and Warbeck both claimed to be the younger prince. Thus the people
who knew the true
> fate of the boys and had them in their care/protection would have
been aware of the
> demise of the oldest, Edward. I think that Richard, knowing full
well what their fate would
> be if Tudor's followers ever got their hands on them would be - a
death sentence - had
> them sent away to safety and I can think of no better place than
Burgundy into the care of
> their aunt, Margaret of York/duchess of Burgundy. This could have
been acieved easily - a
> gateway, now known as Traitors Gate leads straight out into the
Thames. I believe it was
> Tyrell who took them to safety as it is documented that, I forget
the exact wording, that he
> undertook a highly important, secret task for Richard. That is why
he was executed under
> some trumped up charge later on by Tudor. Furthermore I think it is
very possible that
> Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be - the younger prince,
Richard. It pains me to
> think that if I am correct then the young Richard suffered a truly
terrible fate. If you
> compare the images that we have of Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck
there is no getting
> away from the fact that they are as alike as two peas in a pod.
Yes I am aware that Edward
> was a tart and slept around and probably had illigitimate children
all over the place but I
> still think Perkin was young Richard.
>
> Now who do I think would have gained the most from the death of the
princes - why
> Tudor certainly. Not only would he have gained he would have
found it NECESSARY to
> have them disposed of - he had married their sister to make his
claim stronger to the
> throne. If either of the princes had turned up their claim to the
throne would have been
> stronger than Tudor's or Elizabeth of York. Im sure Tudor's mother
and her sidekick
> Morton would have been only too willing to point that out to him.
But he was certainly not
> a stupid man in any case. Unfortunetly Clarences son did not
escape Tudors clutches and
> died for it (as did his sister in Tudor's son's, Fat Henry, reign
I can picture him on his
> deathbed extolling young Henry to make sure to get all the
Platagenets even women in
> their 60's. But that is another story).Now having said all that -
I still think Tudor didnt get
> the chance to get to the boys and remained in the dark about their
whereabouts and I
> hope it caused him many sleepless nights!
> Oh yes and yet another reason as to why I believe this - Sir
William Stanley, closely
> connected to Tudor through marriage and who turned the tide in
Tudors favour at
> Bosworth didnt know either as when the news of the survival of one
of Edward's sons
> 'come blazing across England' (Bacon's words but I love them!) he
said that if Warbeck was
> truely the son of Edward he would never fight him! He paid the
price for this with his life.
>
> Well Rene thats it, thats my theory for wot it is worth.
> best wishes Eileen
>
I think you are quite right about the different fates of the
two "Princes". Edward surely died of natural causes and there are
contemporary medical reports. Richard of Shrewsbury is therefore the
only survivor and, when TR was repealed, rightful King.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> what about the princes' baby brother, george i think his name was.
he died while a toddler. there ya go..full male dna, unless woodville
was as ribald as e4.
> of course with the decompsition of the bodies the may only be
able to glean the mother's dna from those remains...but still a
closer kinship than the niece of the princes.
>
> i still don't think the crown will allow the testing on these
royal remains. unearthing commoners is one thing, but royalty "is to
be respected".
> roslyn
>
> Yes, George Duke of Bedford, as revealed in Ann Wroe's book. I am
not sure where he is buried but I shall put the idea to John.

Stephen

> rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
> I thought that Lambert Simnell was set up as being Edward
Earl of
> Warwick, Clarence's son ? Which raises the intriguing question of
who
> would have ended up on the throne in 1487 if the Battle of Stoke
had
> gone the other way and Henry Tudor had died in the battle and John
de
> la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, survived - would Lincoln and Francis
> Viscount Lovell have released Edward from the Tower and made him
King
> Edward (V or VI -- another interesting question ?), perhaps with
> Lincoln as Protector, or would Lincoln, as Richard's designated
heir,
> have become King John II ? Or would Richard Duke of York have
> reappeared and become King Richard IV ? (hopefully not as portrayed
by
> Brian Blessed in Blackadder ;-).
>
> Is the hair of Elizabeth of York & Henry Tudor's daughter Mary the
> only available possibility for a DNA comparison with the bones
found
> in the Tower ? Are there no positively-identifiable remains of
other
> close relations to Edward's sons that could be accessed - even if
it
> involved opening a sarcophagus ? Doesn't Elizabeth herself still
lie
> in her tomb ? Are the last resting place of any of her sisters (or
> indeed their mother Elizabeth Woodville) positively known ?
>
> Given the advances in techniques for dating and identifying human
> remains since the 1930s, and the considerable popular interest in
the
> fate of the Princes, there is a strong case for allowing a one-off
> opening of graves to allow tests to take place and confirm or deny
the
> identity of the bones found at the Tower once and for all.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > Now I conclude this is the case because as far as I can remember
> > both the pretenders, that I am aware of, Simnell and Warbeck both
> > claimed to be the younger prince.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > what about the princes' baby brother, george i think his name
was.
> he died while a toddler. there ya go..full male dna, unless
woodville
> was as ribald as e4.
> > of course with the decompsition of the bodies the may only be
> able to glean the mother's dna from those remains...but still a
> closer kinship than the niece of the princes.
> >
> > i still don't think the crown will allow the testing on these
> royal remains. unearthing commoners is one thing, but royalty "is
to
> be respected".
> > roslyn
> >
> > Yes, George Duke of Bedford, as revealed in Ann Wroe's book. I am
> not sure where he is buried but I shall put the idea to John.
>
> Stephen


IIRC, he is with his parents in St George's Chapel at Westminster.

Katy

> Stephen Lark wrote:

> I think you are quite right about the different
fates of the
> two "Princes". Edward surely died of natural causes
and there are
> contemporary medical reports. Richard of Shrewsbury
is therefore the
> only survivor and, when TR was repealed, rightful King.

I'm not so sure about that last bit. Don't forget, TR
was drafted in favor of a York king, and repealed by
a Lancaster of no royal blood. Assuming the Yorkists
defeated Henry and took the throne back, I can't see
them being bound by _his_ decisions, especially to
the disrespect of one of their own kings. My guess
(and I freely admit it's debatable) is that John
would get the throne because he was Richard III's
heir, and because he was a grownup. (Young Richard
might have been close, or even technically adult, but
there's still a big difference between a teenager and
a man in his twenties.) Plus, De La Pole would
probably have done a lot more of the fighting, and
wouldn't be Woodville-controlled.

However, all I can say with any certainty is that
there would be a lot of shouting in Parliament for a
while after. ;)


Take care,
Kat


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Planto bardus populus subsisto sermo!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > what about the princes' baby brother, george i think his name
> was.
> > he died while a toddler. there ya go..full male dna, unless
> woodville
> > was as ribald as e4.
> > > of course with the decompsition of the bodies the may only be
> > able to glean the mother's dna from those remains...but still a
> > closer kinship than the niece of the princes.
> > >
> > > i still don't think the crown will allow the testing on these
> > royal remains. unearthing commoners is one thing, but royalty "is
> to
> > be respected".
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > Yes, George Duke of Bedford, as revealed in Ann Wroe's book. I
am
> > not sure where he is buried but I shall put the idea to John.
> >
> > Stephen
>
>
> IIRC, he is with his parents in St George's Chapel at Westminster.
>
> Katy
>


Correcting myslf one again -- that should be Windsor.

Katy

this is a little stale dated in response, but i'm currently reading..
lives of the queens of england Vol. 3 by agnes strickland. written in the mid 19thC, this book is available via google books.

on page 428, in the footnote it states..
the coffin of her second daughter, the princess mary...a curl of hair of the most exquisite pale gold had insinuated itself through the chinks of her coffin; it was cut off and is in fine preservation.

end quote.

i should also note, that strickland has made some minor errors of fact in what i have read so far. but, they are few. she is definitely NOT a fan of richard..so grit your teeth as you read. but, back on topic...

if strickland IS correct..then where is princess mary of york's curl of hair? is it the one in the museum of bury st. edumnds? or is there another "set of mary hair" that would offer even closer dna comparison to the "bones of the tower"?

i suppose investigating ms. strickland's location of residency during her life time could possibly assist in tracking down a possible location for mary of york's hair. strickland's wording leads one to surmise that she had actually seen the curl.

what remains to be determined..does the bury st. edmunds hair belong to mary of york or her neice mary tudor?

does anyone know the colour the bury st. edmunds hair?
roslyn


--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of Westminster, the Very
> Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the sarcophagus in the Abbey
> to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented & allowed furher testing on the
> bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes we would be no nearer
> to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were found out - on the basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a result that would be! That
> would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> Eileen
>

Roslyn,

It is definitely Henry VII's daughter - I have been to the Museum,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter



this is a little stale dated in response, but i'm currently reading..
lives of the queens of england Vol. 3 by agnes strickland. written in the mid 19thC, this book is available via google books.

on page 428, in the footnote it states..
the coffin of her second daughter, the princess mary...a curl of hair of the most exquisite pale gold had insinuated itself through the chinks of her coffin; it was cut off and is in fine preservation.

end quote.

i should also note, that strickland has made some minor errors of fact in what i have read so far. but, they are few. she is definitely NOT a fan of richard..so grit your teeth as you read. but, back on topic...

if strickland IS correct..then where is princess mary of york's curl of hair? is it the one in the museum of bury st. edumnds? or is there another "set of mary hair" that would offer even closer dna comparison to the "bones of the tower"?

i suppose investigating ms. strickland's location of residency during her life time could possibly assist in tracking down a possible location for mary of york's hair. strickland's wording leads one to surmise that she had actually seen the curl.

what remains to be determined..does the bury st. edmunds hair belong to mary of york or her neice mary tudor?

does anyone know the colour the bury st. edmunds hair?
roslyn

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of Westminster, the Very
> Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the sarcophagus in the Abbey
> to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented & allowed furher testing on the
> bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes we would be no nearer
> to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were found out - on the basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a result that would be! That
> would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> Eileen
>

great, so did you see the hair? if so, what colour was it?
 
portraits show h7's daughter as being a distinct redhead as a younger woman, and a deep mahogany red during her marriage to charles brandon. 
 
as an 18 year old bride, the venetian ambassador describes h7's daughter, mary's hair thusly, "She wore her glorious silken red-gold hair flowing loose to her waist".
 
strickland says the lock/curl of hair gleaned from the coffin of the 15 year old mary of york, was a "most exquisite pale gold".
 
therefore, it seems that it is possible that there may be another lock of hair to find...and to use for comparison when dna testing of 1674 bones of the tower is permitted by the powers that be.
 
roslyn


--- On Sun, 8/1/10, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter
To:
Received: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 1:50 PM


 



Roslyn,

It is definitely Henry VII's daughter - I have been to the Museum,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter

this is a little stale dated in response, but i'm currently reading..
lives of the queens of england Vol. 3 by agnes strickland. written in the mid 19thC, this book is available via google books.

on page 428, in the footnote it states..
the coffin of her second daughter, the princess mary...a curl of hair of the most exquisite pale gold had insinuated itself through the chinks of her coffin; it was cut off and is in fine preservation.

end quote.

i should also note, that strickland has made some minor errors of fact in what i have read so far. but, they are few. she is definitely NOT a fan of richard..so grit your teeth as you read. but, back on topic...

if strickland IS correct..then where is princess mary of york's curl of hair? is it the one in the museum of bury st. edumnds? or is there another "set of mary hair" that would offer even closer dna comparison to the "bones of the tower"?

i suppose investigating ms. strickland's location of residency during her life time could possibly assist in tracking down a possible location for mary of york's hair. strickland's wording leads one to surmise that she had actually seen the curl.

what remains to be determined..does the bury st. edmunds hair belong to mary of york or her neice mary tudor?

does anyone know the colour the bury st. edmunds hair?
roslyn

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of Westminster, the Very
> Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the sarcophagus in the Abbey
> to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented & allowed furher testing on the
> bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes we would be no nearer
> to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were found out - on the basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a result that would be! That
> would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> Eileen
>

It was a red of sorts but it was about three years ago. I will investigate further.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter



great, so did you see the hair? if so, what colour was it?

portraits show h7's daughter as being a distinct redhead as a younger woman, and a deep mahogany red during her marriage to charles brandon.

as an 18 year old bride, the venetian ambassador describes h7's daughter, mary's hair thusly, "She wore her glorious silken red-gold hair flowing loose to her waist".

strickland says the lock/curl of hair gleaned from the coffin of the 15 year old mary of york, was a "most exquisite pale gold".

therefore, it seems that it is possible that there may be another lock of hair to find...and to use for comparison when dna testing of 1674 bones of the tower is permitted by the powers that be.

roslyn

--- On Sun, 8/1/10, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter
To:
Received: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 1:50 PM



Roslyn,

It is definitely Henry VII's daughter - I have been to the Museum,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Daily Mail article/Bones in Westminter

this is a little stale dated in response, but i'm currently reading..
lives of the queens of england Vol. 3 by agnes strickland. written in the mid 19thC, this book is available via google books.

on page 428, in the footnote it states..
the coffin of her second daughter, the princess mary...a curl of hair of the most exquisite pale gold had insinuated itself through the chinks of her coffin; it was cut off and is in fine preservation.

end quote.

i should also note, that strickland has made some minor errors of fact in what i have read so far. but, they are few. she is definitely NOT a fan of richard..so grit your teeth as you read. but, back on topic...

if strickland IS correct..then where is princess mary of york's curl of hair? is it the one in the museum of bury st. edumnds? or is there another "set of mary hair" that would offer even closer dna comparison to the "bones of the tower"?

i suppose investigating ms. strickland's location of residency during her life time could possibly assist in tracking down a possible location for mary of york's hair. strickland's wording leads one to surmise that she had actually seen the curl.

what remains to be determined..does the bury st. edmunds hair belong to mary of york or her neice mary tudor?

does anyone know the colour the bury st. edmunds hair?
roslyn

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Little article in todays Daily Mail entitled 'Hair could unlock the riddle of the Tower' -
> John Ashdown-Hill from Essex University "hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair
> believed to belong to the boys' neice Mary Tudor and kept in the museum in Bury St
> Edmunds, Suffolk could reveal the answer". Unfortunetly he goes on further "But there are
> several hurdles to overcome. The hair is kept in a locket & museum stuff are trying to find
> a way to open the locket without damaging it". Plus "The Dean of Westminster, the Very
> Reverend John Hall, feels it would be inappropriate to open the sarcophagus in the Abbey
> to test the skeletons". Ho Humm!
> How annoying/frustrating. Obviously if Rev Hall relented & allowed furher testing on the
> bones & they were found to be that of one or both of the princes we would be no nearer
> to finding out who murdered them but what a result if they were found out - on the basis
> of the DNA, to not be the princes bones (as I believe) what a result that would be! That
> would make the traditionists sit up and remove their heads from whereever they have
> them stuck. Maybe a few apologies might be forthcoming.
> Eileen
>