Sorry, Dem Bones again

Watch out folks, the opening to this may appear heretical but please
read the lot:

So far as the populace at large is concerned, the find in 1674 has
counted heavily against Richard, particularly when the first half of
Tyrrell's confession and the Tanner-Wright findings appear to
reinforce it.

Now we all KNOW that Tyrrell says "...... but then we moved them" and
that Tanner and Wright practically wrote their conclusion before they
started and, of course, they didn't use carbon-14 dating and Royal
retainers won't let anyone re-analyse them now that can be done. To
the layman, however, it makes things look a little blacker for
Richard than it would otherwise.

Are we, therefore, missing a trick?

Instead of just denying that "dem bones" are Edward of Westminster
and Richard of Shrewsbury, should we be suggesting alternative
possibilities? If so, one or two have recently come to mind (with
thanks to Marie).

The Royal apartments at the Tower underwent building work in the
middle of the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. This would create
foundations amongst which fresh skeletons could be concealed.

In 1536, Reginald Pole, exiled in France, spoke out against Henry
VIII's divorce and re-marriage. There may have been a plot of some
sort (Hazel Pierce thinks so) but Reginald's brothers Henry (Lord
Montagu together with Henry, his son) and Sir Geoffrey plus their
cousin the Marquess of Dorset were arrested. Sir Geoffrey was
threatened that his servants faced torture and he gave evidence
against the others. Montagu and Dorset were beheaded on 9 Dec 1538 or
9 Jan 1539. Sir Geoffrey had a breakdown of sorts and died naturally
in 1558.

Henry Pole the Younger was evidently under age in late 1538 because
he was not executed. He was not seen after 1542 and this is close to
the time of the building works. At this time, and I hope I am not
merely presuming his death as Tudorites do Edward IV's sons, he would
be about 21.

If the 1674 bones prove to be male and human, I now postulate the
hypothesis that Henry Pole the Younger is a favourite to be part of
the find. He was, of course, a cousin of Westminster and Shrewsbury
in that he was definitely descended from Cicely Neville and very
probably from Richard Duke of York so his DNA will be quite similar.

Then there is William de la Pole, last of the Earl of Lincoln's
brothers, who disappeared in the Tower after a long imprisonment in
about 1540. He would be much older (70?) and may well have passed
away naturally although his age makes him less probable, even
allowing for Tanner and Wright's shoddy work.

Well, I have named one very likely candidate and one long shot who
disappeared at the time of building works - much as Jimmy Hoffa is
supposed to reside under some American football goalposts.

Do you agree with my suggestions or have alternatives of your own?

here is a good article discussing the bones.
http://www.richard111.com/Princes%20Project.htm

it fails to mention the story of sir walter raleigh and a companion (who were prisoners in the tower) finding two youthful sets of skeltons laid out on a table in a secret room in the tower circa 1611. it's not known what happened to those bones.

roslyn

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
Watch out folks, the opening to this may appear heretical but please
read the lot:

So far as the populace at large is concerned, the find in 1674 has
counted heavily against Richard, particularly when the first half of
Tyrrell's confession and the Tanner-Wright findings appear to
reinforce it.

Now we all KNOW that Tyrrell says "...... but then we moved them" and
that Tanner and Wright practically wrote their conclusion before they
started and, of course, they didn't use carbon-14 dating and Royal
retainers won't let anyone re-analyse them now that can be done. To
the layman, however, it makes things look a little blacker for
Richard than it would otherwise.

Are we, therefore, missing a trick?

Instead of just denying that "dem bones" are Edward of Westminster
and Richard of Shrewsbury, should we be suggesting alternative
possibilities? If so, one or two have recently come to mind (with
thanks to Marie).

The Royal apartments at the Tower underwent building work in the
middle of the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. This would create
foundations amongst which fresh skeletons could be concealed.

In 1536, Reginald Pole, exiled in France, spoke out against Henry
VIII's divorce and re-marriage. There may have been a plot of some
sort (Hazel Pierce thinks so) but Reginald's brothers Henry (Lord
Montagu together with Henry, his son) and Sir Geoffrey plus their
cousin the Marquess of Dorset were arrested. Sir Geoffrey was
threatened that his servants faced torture and he gave evidence
against the others. Montagu and Dorset were beheaded on 9 Dec 1538 or
9 Jan 1539. Sir Geoffrey had a breakdown of sorts and died naturally
in 1558.

Henry Pole the Younger was evidently under age in late 1538 because
he was not executed. He was not seen after 1542 and this is close to
the time of the building works. At this time, and I hope I am not
merely presuming his death as Tudorites do Edward IV's sons, he would
be about 21.

If the 1674 bones prove to be male and human, I now postulate the
hypothesis that Henry Pole the Younger is a favourite to be part of
the find. He was, of course, a cousin of Westminster and Shrewsbury
in that he was definitely descended from Cicely Neville and very
probably from Richard Duke of York so his DNA will be quite similar.

Then there is William de la Pole, last of the Earl of Lincoln's
brothers, who disappeared in the Tower after a long imprisonment in
about 1540. He would be much older (70?) and may well have passed
away naturally although his age makes him less probable, even
allowing for Tanner and Wright's shoddy work.

Well, I have named one very likely candidate and one long shot who
disappeared at the time of building works - much as Jimmy Hoffa is
supposed to reside under some American football goalposts.

Do you agree with my suggestions or have alternatives of your own?

So why aren't people screaming about what that nasty Henry VIII did
to this poor old man?
Disappeared in the Tower, just like those "bastards of Edward IV".
Paul


On 7 Jul 2007, at 19:59, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Then there is William de la Pole, last of the Earl of Lincoln's
> brothers, who disappeared in the Tower after a long imprisonment in
> about 1540.

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> So why aren't people screaming about what that nasty Henry VIII
did
> to this poor old man?
> Disappeared in the Tower, just like those "bastards of Edward IV".
> Paul
>
>
> On 7 Jul 2007, at 19:59, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Then there is William de la Pole, last of the Earl of Lincoln's
> > brothers, who disappeared in the Tower after a long imprisonment
in
> > about 1540.
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
Because Henry and his three marital children (both of his daughters
were legitimate and illegitimate at various stages of their lives)
ruled for another sixty years and it would be difficult for a Mancini
figure to criticise Henry as freely as the original did the dead,
childless Richard, I suppose. The Tudors liked long imprisonment
before execution/ disappearance, as Edward of Warwick (fourteen
years), Edmund of Suffolk (about six), William himself (about twenty-
five) and Henry Pole (about four) found out.

This reminds me of Roger Cooper, a British businessman accused of
espionage in Iran and sentenced to "death plus ten years". When told
that the imprisonment came first, he said "that is the good news."

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> So why aren't people screaming about what that nasty Henry VIII did
> to this poor old man?
> Disappeared in the Tower, just like those "bastards of Edward IV".
> Paul
>
>
> On 7 Jul 2007, at 19:59, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Then there is William de la Pole, last of the Earl of Lincoln's
> > brothers, who disappeared in the Tower after a long imprisonment in
> > about 1540.
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > So why aren't people screaming about what that nasty Henry VIII
did
> > to this poor old man?
> > Disappeared in the Tower, just like those "bastards of Edward IV".
> > Paul

The Tudors had better PR men and image consultants. I always think of
Henry VIII as England's answer to Idi Amin, but even today, when we
really should know better, it's amazing how many people think 'Bluff
King Hal' was a splendid fellow.

Come to that, to hear some people talk, you might be forgiven for
thinking that Richard III was the only English sovereign ever to have
anyone topped. Utter rot of course. For starters, he had an excellent
tutor in his own brother, Edward IV, who had a variety of people
executed on very dubious grounds - anyone who doubts this could start
by reading up on the events of 1468-1469. Oh and then there was the
small matter of his own brother Clarence. The Lancastrian kings were
also a pretty ruthless lot - Henry IV once had a man executed on the
spot just for saying the wrong thing when he was in a bad mood. But
it's Richard who always gets the bad press.

Brian W

Sorry Stephen, it was meant as a rhetorical tongue in cheek:-)
Thanks for the answer all the same though.
Paul


On 8 Jul 2007, at 16:17, Stephen Lark wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> So why aren't people screaming about what that nasty Henry VIII
> did
>> to this poor old man?
>> Disappeared in the Tower, just like those "bastards of Edward IV".
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2007, at 19:59, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>>> Then there is William de la Pole, last of the Earl of Lincoln's
>>> brothers, who disappeared in the Tower after a long imprisonment
> in
>>> about 1540.
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
> Because Henry and his three marital children (both of his daughters
> were legitimate and illegitimate at various stages of their lives)
> ruled for another sixty years and it would be difficult for a Mancini
> figure to criticise Henry as freely as the original did the dead,
> childless Richard, I suppose. The Tudors liked long imprisonment
> before execution/ disappearance, as Edward of Warwick (fourteen
> years), Edmund of Suffolk (about six), William himself (about twenty-
> five) and Henry Pole (about four) found out.
>
> This reminds me of Roger Cooper, a British businessman accused of
> espionage in Iran and sentenced to "death plus ten years". When told
> that the imprisonment came first, he said "that is the good news."
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"