The Tower: Any other bones?

The subject of the Tower bones and a possible attempt to use DNA from a
locket of hair from the Prince's neice, Mary Tudor, came up on another
history forum. I'm not sure if this is new, it's from an article by Chris
Brooke of the Daily Mail. I don't recall it being discussed here, if not
I'll post it in a followup.
My question is...in the course of the history of the Tower have any other
bones been found buried there? I think I've seen that there were, but can't
find any reference to that.
To save me some more digging, how deep were the bones found, wasn't it 12
feet or something? And while the Tower dates back to shortly after the
Conquest, don't the foundations date back further to Roman times?
TIA for any help.
Terry

--- In , "Terry Buckaloo"
<thebucks@...> wrote:
>
> The subject of the Tower bones and a possible attempt to use DNA from a
> locket of hair from the Prince's neice, Mary Tudor, came up on another
> history forum. I'm not sure if this is new, it's from an article by
Chris
> Brooke of the Daily Mail. I don't recall it being discussed here,
if not
> I'll post it in a followup.
> My question is...in the course of the history of the Tower have any
other
> bones been found buried there? I think I've seen that there were,
but can't
> find any reference to that.
> To save me some more digging, how deep were the bones found, wasn't
it 12
> feet or something? And while the Tower dates back to shortly after the
> Conquest, don't the foundations date back further to Roman times?
> TIA for any help.
> Terry



The southeast corner of the White Tower, and the walls running back
from there for quite a distance, align with the walls of the Roman
fortress that predated it. The Romans built well, so it would be
logical to have used those walls as the foundation for that part of
the White Tower. In turn, the Romans may have built upon an existing
structure.

I have speculated that the famous bones were pre-Roman wall
sacrifices, made to give supernatural protection to the fortification.

The bones may have been dug up one or more times before the big
discovery in the 17th century, then wrapped up and placed in a box and
reburied in situ. It would be the logical thing to do -- they were
human, thus deserving respectful treatment (till more modern times,
when they were initially thrown into a trash heap) but since they were
clearly from pagan times, it wouldn't do to remove them to either a
Roman or a Christian cemetary.

Katy

--- In , "Terry Buckaloo"
<thebucks@...> wrote:
>
> The subject of the Tower bones and a possible attempt to use DNA
from a
> locket of hair from the Prince's neice, Mary Tudor, came up on
another
> history forum. I'm not sure if this is new, it's from an article
by Chris
> Brooke of the Daily Mail. I don't recall it being discussed here,
if not
> I'll post it in a followup.
> My question is...in the course of the history of the Tower have any
other
> bones been found buried there? I think I've seen that there were,
but can't
> find any reference to that.
> To save me some more digging, how deep were the bones found, wasn't
it 12
> feet or something? And while the Tower dates back to shortly after
the
> Conquest, don't the foundations date back further to Roman times?
> TIA for any help.
> Terry
>
>
>
>
Terry,

A couple of years ago, you asked me a question about the descendants
of William, Lord Hastings and I mentioned the Francis, Earl of
Huntingdon who married Catherine Pole. One of her brothers, Henry
Pole the Younger (Richard's great-great-nephew), was never seen after
1542, having been arrested along with his father and imprisoned there
in 1538.
Also, Richard's nephew Lord William de la Pole, brother of the Earls
of Lincoln and Suffolk, was imprisoned there in c.1506 and neither
released nor publicly buried. He is another candidate.
Therefore, some of those bones could be Plantagenet and closely
related to Richard without being those ex-Princes.
"Mary Tudor", by the way, is Henry VIII's nice sister, who was Lady
Jane Grey's grandmother, not his awful daughter.

The famous bones were mixed up with others, including pig bones.
I like you pagan theory Katy. Makes sense.
Paul

On 13 Feb 2008, at 21:45, oregonkaty wrote:

> I have speculated that the famous bones were pre-Roman wall
> sacrifices, made to give supernatural protection to the fortification.
>
> The bones may have been dug up one or more times before the big
> discovery in the 17th century, then wrapped up and placed in a box and
> reburied in situ. It would be the logical thing to do -- they were
> human, thus deserving respectful treatment (till more modern times,
> when they were initially thrown into a trash heap) but since they were
> clearly from pagan times, it wouldn't do to remove them to either a
> Roman or a Christian cemetary.

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

When it comes to those bones that were found in the tower in the
seventeenth century, I am fairly convinced that these are the bones
of the two princes BUT two points do bother me..and they are...

They do appear, to me, to be rather small to be the sons of a man who
was without doubt, very tall, even by modern standards.

The skeletons were buried very deep in the ground. Was is ten feet
or more?????? How could anybody dig so deep in the ground overnight
in such a busy place as the tower without being noticed?????

Waiting for answers


Angela











--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> The famous bones were mixed up with others, including pig bones.
> I like you pagan theory Katy. Makes sense.
> Paul
>
> On 13 Feb 2008, at 21:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > I have speculated that the famous bones were pre-Roman wall
> > sacrifices, made to give supernatural protection to the
fortification.
> >
> > The bones may have been dug up one or more times before the big
> > discovery in the 17th century, then wrapped up and placed in a
box and
> > reburied in situ. It would be the logical thing to do -- they
were
> > human, thus deserving respectful treatment (till more modern
times,
> > when they were initially thrown into a trash heap) but since they
were
> > clearly from pagan times, it wouldn't do to remove them to either
a
> > Roman or a Christian cemetary.
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

my 6 foot 4 inch son was pretty much normal height range with his peers until he was 14ish..then he grewwwwwww. i'm 5''7" and his dad is 6'2". my 12 year old daughter is just now beginning to grow. she's about 4'11". i think she'll top five feet ten inches when a mature adult.

as for digging a hole 10+ feet overnight..well..a bit of risk..shovels and picks do make noise. i know in our rocky soil here..not compacted with centuries of people walking on it..one can dig a pit 4 x 4 x 3 feet in about an hour. we had to bury a pet dog a few years back. BUT, also consider that there was construction work going on in the area. "if" there was already the beginnings of a pit..it would not take one or two men too long to dig it a little deeper and "plant" a box/coffin to be discovered by the next mornings shift..wink, wink, nudge, nudge...ooer..lookie what the guys at the foot of the stair found.

and of course..if one was sneaking in the bones..one would have the authority to have the area cleared of nonessential personnel..and a few bribes and/or threats would keep the common worker's mouth shut.

now with all that being said..according to thomas more, the princes were originally buried metely deep at the foot of a stair...HOWEVER...thomas also states: brackenbury's priest took then up and buried them elsewhere. ergo, more's story DOES NOT confirm that the princes would be found at stair foot.

george buck wrote that bones were found in the tower about 1615, but they were believed to be those of an ape.

and at sometime between 1603 and 1611, arthur de grey and sir walter raleigh, both being held as prisoners in the tower at this time..found bones in a secret room.

and i do like katy's theory about pagan protection being offered..and i also think it is important to acknowledge stephen's contribution of assorted missing youthful prisoners who were also held in the tower prior to the 1674 *discovery*

there are loads of reasons to have the bones dna tested. does anyone know where the princes' little brother george b. march 1476/77 d. 1478/79 is buried?

if they can open little anne mowbray's coffin..then one would think they could open e4's or little george's coffin and take a tooth for dna sampling.

roslyn

amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

When it comes to those bones that were found in the tower in the
seventeenth century, I am fairly convinced that these are the bones
of the two princes BUT two points do bother me..and they are...

They do appear, to me, to be rather small to be the sons of a man who
was without doubt, very tall, even by modern standards.

The skeletons were buried very deep in the ground. Was is ten feet
or more?????? How could anybody dig so deep in the ground overnight
in such a busy place as the tower without being noticed?????

Waiting for answers

Angela

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> The famous bones were mixed up with others, including pig bones.
> I like you pagan theory Katy. Makes sense.
> Paul
>
> On 13 Feb 2008, at 21:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > I have speculated that the famous bones were pre-Roman wall
> > sacrifices, made to give supernatural protection to the
fortification.
> >
> > The bones may have been dug up one or more times before the big
> > discovery in the 17th century, then wrapped up and placed in a
box and
> > reburied in situ. It would be the logical thing to do -- they
were
> > human, thus deserving respectful treatment (till more modern
times,
> > when they were initially thrown into a trash heap) but since they
were
> > clearly from pagan times, it wouldn't do to remove them to either
a
> > Roman or a Christian cemetary.
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

--- In , "amertzanis"
<amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
> When it comes to those bones that were found in the tower in the
> seventeenth century, I am fairly convinced that these are the bones
> of the two princes BUT two points do bother me..and they are...
>
> They do appear, to me, to be rather small to be the sons of a man who
> was without doubt, very tall, even by modern standards.
>
> The skeletons were buried very deep in the ground. Was is ten feet
> or more?????? How could anybody dig so deep in the ground overnight
> in such a busy place as the tower without being noticed?????
>
> Waiting for answers
>
>
> Angela
>


I would think surely not. The stairs in question led from the royal
apartments to the Chapel of St John in the Tower. They would have
been in daily use in the times when the energetic priest is supposed
to have buried the bodies there.

Having visited the Tower this past spring, and paid special attention
to stairs in the White Tower, I'm now even more convinced that the
stair burial story is nonsense. The spiral stairs are set inside the
thickness of the wall of the Tower and consist of triangular stone
treads which are mortared in place. I doubt that a priest with a
jackhammer could have gotten anywhere with them.

There are many places in the White Tower, let alone the entire Tower
of London complex, where bodies could be buried in secrecy and
probably never discovered. In the vaults under the White Tower, which
are filled with muck and flooded when the Thames was high, for one.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> my 6 foot 4 inch son was pretty much normal height range with his
peers until he was 14ish..then he grewwwwwww. i'm 5''7" and his dad is
6'2". my 12 year old daughter is just now beginning to grow. she's
about 4'11". i think she'll top five feet ten inches when a mature adult.
>
> as for digging a hole 10+ feet overnight..well..a bit of
risk..shovels and picks do make noise. i know in our rocky soil
here..not compacted with centuries of people walking on it..one can
dig a pit 4 x 4 x 3 feet in about an hour. we had to bury a pet dog a
few years back. BUT, also consider that there was construction work
going on in the area.


"if" there was already the beginnings of a pit..it would not take one
or two men too long to dig it a little deeper and "plant" a box/coffin
to be discovered by the next mornings shift..wink, wink, nudge,
nudge...ooer..lookie what the guys at the foot of the stair found.
>
> and of course..if one was sneaking in the bones..one would have
the authority to have the area cleared of nonessential personnel..and
a few bribes and/or threats would keep the common worker's mouth shut.
>
> now with all that being said..according to thomas more, the
princes were originally buried metely deep at the foot of a
stair...HOWEVER...thomas also states: brackenbury's priest took then
up and buried them elsewhere. ergo, more's story DOES NOT confirm that
the princes would be found at stair foot.


Yes...the bones were found exactly where More said they would not be
-- he said they had been moved from the place the bones were found in
1674.


> george buck wrote that bones were found in the tower about 1615,
but they were believed to be those of an ape.
>
> and at sometime between 1603 and 1611, arthur de grey and sir
walter raleigh, both being held as prisoners in the tower at this
time..found bones in a secret room.
>
> and i do like katy's theory about pagan protection being
offered..and i also think it is important to acknowledge stephen's
contribution of assorted missing youthful prisoners who were also held
in the tower prior to the 1674 *discovery*
>
> there are loads of reasons to have the bones dna tested. does
anyone know where the princes' little brother george b. march 1476/77
d. 1478/79 is buried?


He is buried with his parents and sister, Mary (I think it's Mary) who
died at age 16, in the Chapel of St George at Windsor Castle.


Katy

On 15 Feb 2008, at 01:36, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> There are many places in the White Tower, let alone the entire Tower
> of London complex, where bodies could be buried in secrecy and
> probably never discovered. In the vaults under the White Tower, which
> are filled with muck and flooded when the Thames was high, for one.
>
> Katy
>
Agreed including straight over the walls into the river. Gone forever!
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

On 13 Feb 2008, at 22:31, Stephen Lark wrote:

> "Mary Tudor", by the way, is Henry VIII's nice sister, who was Lady
> Jane Grey's grandmother, not his awful daughter.


Sorry Stephen, you are wrong as according to the recent tv series,
Henry's sister's name was Margaret. :-) :-)
Paul
(Yes, I am joking)


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

On 14 Feb 2008, at 23:19, amertzanis wrote:

>
> When it comes to those bones that were found in the tower in the
> seventeenth century, I am fairly convinced that these are the bones
> of the two princes BUT two points do bother me..and they are...
>
> They do appear, to me, to be rather small to be the sons of a man who
> was without doubt, very tall, even by modern standards.
>
> The skeletons were buried very deep in the ground. Was is ten feet
> or more?????? How could anybody dig so deep in the ground overnight
> in such a busy place as the tower without being noticed?????
>
> Waiting for answers
>
>

Angela, I am amazed you say you are fairly convinced these are the
bones of the sons of Edward IV, especially when you go on to give
good reasons for their not being. Buried deep in the ground, correct.
In a community as large as that of the Tower at the time, a lone
person could not dig that much without attracting attention, nor dig,
as Katy said, under stone of the weight of those that were used to
build the White Tower.
I am totally convinced those bones in the Abbey are nothing to do
with the sons of Edward IV. As I said earlier, if you kill someone in
the Tower, undetected, difficult at the best of times, and don't want
them to be found you throw the bodies into the nearest sewer, in this
case, over the walls of the Tower into the river, that was much
closer in the 15th century than now.
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "amertzanis"
> <amertzanis@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > When it comes to those bones that were found in the tower in the
> > seventeenth century, I am fairly convinced that these are the
bones
> > of the two princes BUT two points do bother me..and they are...
> >
> > They do appear, to me, to be rather small to be the sons of a man
who
> > was without doubt, very tall, even by modern standards.
> >
> > The skeletons were buried very deep in the ground. Was is ten
feet
> > or more?????? How could anybody dig so deep in the ground
overnight
> > in such a busy place as the tower without being noticed?????
> >
> > Waiting for answers
> >
> >
> > Angela
> >
>
>
> I would think surely not. The stairs in question led from the royal
> apartments to the Chapel of St John in the Tower. They would have
> been in daily use in the times when the energetic priest is supposed
> to have buried the bodies there.
>
> Having visited the Tower this past spring, and paid special
attention
> to stairs in the White Tower, I'm now even more convinced that the
> stair burial story is nonsense. The spiral stairs are set inside
the
> thickness of the wall of the Tower and consist of triangular stone
> treads which are mortared in place. I doubt that a priest with a
> jackhammer could have gotten anywhere with them.
>
> There are many places in the White Tower, let alone the entire Tower
> of London complex, where bodies could be buried in secrecy and
> probably never discovered. In the vaults under the White Tower,
which
> are filled with muck and flooded when the Thames was high, for one.
>
> Katy

I completely agree on that one. I think we have to ask ourselves how
modern archaeologists would interpret such a deep burial had they
been around in the 1670s. I should say they would do their sums and
ascribe it to the Roman era or even a little earlier. Incidentally,
arhcaeologists did unearth a skeleton in the tower precincts in the
1970s or around that time, and pronounced it to be Iron Age.

The "Princes'" skeletons were also very incomplete, which is another
argument in favour of their being much older (the reason the bones
can't be sexed is that they don't actually include pelvises). What
remains suggests children who were, never mind not particularly tall,
but small and underdeveloped in relation to the ages of the Princes
at their disappearance (and also rather closer to each other in age).
It's not even that sure that they were found exactly as More had
described the temporary burial. All our descriptions of the find come
from 'gentlemen' who never spoke to the workmen concerned.
Supposedly, there were some remains of a chest, but if so nothing of
the sort was placed in the urn. Some of the details we have may have
been wishful thinking after the bones had been "identified".
Regarding the skeleton found in a high tower in the reign of
Elizabeth I or James I, it is Buck's personal suggestion that this
apparent child's skeleton may have been that of an ape escaped from
the menagerie, but he hadn't actually seen it.
There were certainly a lot of people who went into the Tower and were
never heard of again, and another child in that category was Lionel
Mortimer, son of Edmuund Mortimer and Glyndwr's daughter.

Marie
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>

> In a community as large as that of the Tower at the time, a lone
> person could not dig that much without attracting attention, nor dig,
> as Katy said, under stone of the weight of those that were used to
> build the White Tower.
> I am totally convinced those bones in the Abbey are nothing to do
> with the sons of Edward IV. As I said earlier, if you kill someone in
> the Tower, undetected, difficult at the best of times, and don't want
> them to be found you throw the bodies into the nearest sewer, in this
> case, over the walls of the Tower into the river, that was much
> closer in the 15th century than now.


There is also the point that if it was important to Richard to have
the boys dead, it was just as important that they be known to be
unequivocably dead. Leaving their fates unknown didn't solve
anything, complicated everything, and left the door open for
pretenders to come forth for the next several decades. Which is
exactly what happened.

(I think meaning of the term "pretenders to the throne" is somewhat
muddled by our modern-day connotation of pretending as acting like
something wished for but in fact untrue. In Medieval days, and in
heraldic terms, it means something else. It's from the Latin for
"reaching before" and pertains to assuming some of the status, rights,
claims, etc of a situation that is not yours now but will become
become so, legally, when some condition is met. A man could display
the arms of his wife's father on his own shield in pretension because
when, say, her father died those arms would become his via the
inheritance of his wife. So a pretender to the throne is not some guy
with a bogus claim but rather someone who has a legitimate claim that
is currently unfulfilled.)

In the Middle Ages, the bodies of slain lords and leaders were not
displayed on the village green due to an urge to be barbaric. It was
to prove that they were really dead so that their followers would not
refuse to accept the new order of things and insist that their lord
had escaped and was simply hiding out waiting to rally a new army.
There was so much he-is-not-dead-he-is-just-away around the death of
Hotspur, I think it was, that the authorities had his corpse dug up
and redisplayed. There was some basis to the hope/belief, since often
several men dressed and equipped as the leader would ride into battle
with him, on similar horses, to confuse matters. There was always the
hope that the one killed was one of the surrogates.

If Richard had wanted to be rid of the boys once and for all, he could
have had them poisoned or smothered or done away in any number of ways
that wouldn't leave obvious wounds, put out that poor boys, they died
of a sudden illness (which happened often enough in those days), given
them a nice funeral preceded by a public viewing, and proceeded with
his reign. It certainly would have simplified his life as much as the
mystery of their fate served to complicate it.

As an aside, on my visit to the Tower of London last year we were
shown where the "princes" had last been seen -- the tower above the
Water Gate, which is now dramatically called Traitor's Gate. Their
apartments were on the top floor. The stairs are a death-trap,
probably literally. They are, as usual, a spiral set into the corner
of the tower, barely wide enough for a man's shoulders, extremely
steep, and I think every irregular-surfaced narrow triangular tread is
a different width and every riser a different height, including one
that is twice the height of the others. I can tell you that there
would have been no need for further explanation of their deaths beyond
"they fell down the stairs".

Katy

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>

> There were certainly a lot of people who went into the Tower and were
> never heard of again, and another child in that category was Lionel
> Mortimer, son of Edmuund Mortimer and Glyndwr's daughter.
>
> Marie

As I recall, another child who went into the Tower and never came
out, as far as records show, was a young boy who was taken into the
Tower to be a playmate and companion for another boy who was being
held there. It seems to me that the one boy was the grandson of the
unfortunate Margaret de la Pole, and the boy who did not emerge was a
nameless non-noble lad.

Katy

Except that bodies thrown into rivers have a nasty habit of being
washed up somewhere along the banks..........

Richard G

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
> As I said earlier, if you kill someone in
> the Tower, undetected, difficult at the best of times, and don't
> want them to be found you throw the bodies into the nearest sewer, in
> this case, over the walls of the Tower into the river, that was much
> closer in the 15th century than now.
> Paul

On 15 Feb 2008, at 17:22, oregonkaty wrote:

> As an aside, on my visit to the Tower of London last year we were
> shown where the "princes" had last been seen -- the tower above the
> Water Gate, which is now dramatically called Traitor's Gate.

That particular Tower was known, UNTIL THE TUDOR PERIOD WHEN MANY
GHASTLY THINGS HAPPENED THERE, as the Garden Tower. Since the Tudor
period it has been known as the Bloody Tower.
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Bloated and naked and partially decomposedor eaten by fish. Hardly
anyone would think "royal".
Paul

On 15 Feb 2008, at 18:02, rgcorris wrote:

> Except that bodies thrown into rivers have a nasty habit of being
> washed up somewhere along the banks..........
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>> As I said earlier, if you kill someone in
>> the Tower, undetected, difficult at the best of times, and don't
>> want them to be found you throw the bodies into the nearest sewer, in
>> this case, over the walls of the Tower into the river, that was much
>> closer in the 15th century than now.
>> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Except that bodies thrown into rivers have a nasty habit of being
> washed up somewhere along the banks..........

Surely there must have been a medieval equivalent of concrete boots.
Leaden boots, perhaps?

>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > As I said earlier, if you kill someone in
> > the Tower, undetected, difficult at the best of times, and don't
> > want them to be found you throw the bodies into the nearest
sewer, in
> > this case, over the walls of the Tower into the river, that was
much
> > closer in the 15th century than now.
> > Paul
>

--- In , "amertzanis"
<amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The skeletons were buried very deep in the ground. Was is ten feet
> or more?????? How could anybody dig so deep in the ground overnight
> in such a busy place as the tower without being noticed?????
>


I think perhaps the word "stairs" conjures up a rather incorrect image
to most of us in the modern era.

The stairs in question are not a staircase in the sense of a set of
one or more flights of steps going up a wall or inside an enclosure,
so that there is a space under one or more of the flights.

The stairs in most castles, including the White Tower and all the
other Medieval castles I've visited, are made of stone and are
continuous spirals set into corner towers. There is no "under the
stairs". The stairs are continuous stone spirals extending from roof
to one or two or even three levels below ground level, at which point
they stop at a floor level.

Here is a link to a photo of the sort of stairs found in the White
Tower. There is a set of these in each of the four towers.

http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castlezi.htm

(Just to add to confusion, the Tower of London is not one edifice but
a collection of numerous individual structures, many called this or
that Tower. The one we are most interested in is the White Tower, the
one built by William the Conqueror. The White Tower is a rectangular
block with a tower on each corner.)

The entrance to a great hall or fortified tower was commonly two very
high stories above ground level and was reached by exterior wooden
stairs that could be burned or torn away in case of attack, making it
harder for invaders to reach the entrance. You enter the Great Hall
at Middleham by a reconstruction of such stairs. There was no "under
the stairs" to them, either. They were an open construction of beams
and trestles. If a wooden staircase to the Chapel of St John in the
White Tower had existed in Richard's time -- and I have never seen
anyone say it did -- it would have rested upon the paved, mortared,
probably padded with rushes and covered by mats or carpet, floor of
that level of the Tower, and been just as inaccessible for clandestine
burials as one of the spiral stairs.

Thomas More may have never been inside the White Tower. It had fallen
into disuse after the reign of Henry VII, and the king More was
familiar with, Henry VIII, lived in far more modern digs at Whitehall,
which does have enclosed freestanding wooden staircases such as we
know now. The idea of burying bodies under stairs might have made
sense to More, whether he made up the story or was repeating someone
else's, but in actuality it makes no sense for the White Tower.

Katy

see below...

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Except that bodies thrown into rivers have a nasty habit of being
> washed up somewhere along the banks..........

Surely there must have been a medieval equivalent of concrete boots.
Leaden boots, perhaps?

====
i don't think they'd be that extravagant with a metal. more likely they would use sacks or blankets sewn as a shroud and stuffed with large rocks for weight to keep the sack/shroud submerged.
using the rock and sack method was a common practice in rural canada for drowning unwanted newborn puppies or kittens. cheaper and more painless than a lead bullet.
cement shoes are form fitted large rocks. they also had cement in that era, so perhaps cement shoes aren't an entirely new "invention".

roslyn

>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > As I said earlier, if you kill someone in
> > the Tower, undetected, difficult at the best of times, and don't
> > want them to be found you throw the bodies into the nearest
sewer, in
> > this case, over the walls of the Tower into the river, that was
much
> > closer in the 15th century than now.
> > Paul
>

Very good - I pointed out Henry Pole the Younger earlier in the thread. He was under eighteen in 1539, otherwise he would have lost a few inches off the top!

----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: The Tower: Any other bones?


--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>

> There were certainly a lot of people who went into the Tower and were
> never heard of again, and another child in that category was Lionel
> Mortimer, son of Edmuund Mortimer and Glyndwr's daughter.
>
> Marie

As I recall, another child who went into the Tower and never came
out, as far as records show, was a young boy who was taken into the
Tower to be a playmate and companion for another boy who was being
held there. It seems to me that the one boy was the grandson of the
unfortunate Margaret de la Pole, and the boy who did not emerge was a
nameless non-noble lad.

Katy

Katy wrote: The stairs in question led from the
royal apartments to the Chapel of St John in the
Tower. They would have been in daily use in the times
when the energetic priest is supposed to have buried
the bodies there. [Snip] I doubt that a priest with a
jackhammer could have gotten anywhere with them.

****

A Tall Story

Once upon a time Sir Robert Brakenbury had a priest.
It was no ordinary priest. When it heard of the
little princes' dolorous dooom, it grabbed its trusty,
never rusty, shovel. Snapping its fingers it vanished
from sight, sailed through the air, and landed
precisely where the princes were secretly buried.
Everyone in the castle--er, Tower--fell into a deeep
sleeep.

Brackenbury's intrepid priest dug up 1,000,000,000
cubic yards plus .000,000,000,1 cubic inches of earth
with a flick of its wrist. Gently it lifted the
pitiful corpses from their 10-foot-deep grave.
Gravely it refilled the pit. Swiftly it carried its
lamentable burden to a secret burial place fit for the
sons of kings.

Grimly it dug a new grave and reburied the princes,
displacing 1,000,000,000 cubic yards plus
.000,000,000,1 cubic inches of earth. Then it mounted
its trusty shovel and returned to the world beyond the
seven mountains and seven seas.

When the cock crowed, everyone in the Tower woke up.
Nobody noticed 2,000,000,000 cubic yards plus
.000,000,000,2 cubic inches of disturbed earth.
Nobody missed Brackenbury's priest.

Only Sir Thomas More was immune to the priest's spell.

In Good King Charles' golden days, officials
misinterpreted the chest of bones dug up during a
Tower renovation project. Horace Walpole, blinded to
the significance of Brackenbury's priest, didn't
mention it in his best-seller, "Historic Doubts on
the Life and Reign of King Richard III." (No doubt,
Alison Weir was compelled to cover-up the priest's
significance in "The Princes in the Tower.")

Today the priest's spell still blinds many to the wild
improbablities of the Tudor version of events.

But the Fat Lady is still sleeping, and the story's
not over 'til the Fat Lady sings!

Marion












____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> see below...
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, "rgcorris"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Except that bodies thrown into rivers have a nasty habit of being
> > washed up somewhere along the banks..........
>
> Surely there must have been a medieval equivalent of concrete
boots.
> Leaden boots, perhaps?
>
> ====
> i don't think they'd be that extravagant with a metal. more
likely they would use sacks or blankets sewn as a shroud and stuffed
with large rocks for weight to keep the sack/shroud submerged.
> using the rock and sack method was a common practice in rural
canada for drowning unwanted newborn puppies or kittens. cheaper and
more painless than a lead bullet.
> cement shoes are form fitted large rocks. they also had cement in
that era, so perhaps cement shoes aren't an entirely new "invention".

Rocks are obviously a traditional method - where rocks are available.
The Thames basin is not such a place, though (some parts of the south-
east have very flinty soil, but I'm not sure if that is the case so
close to the river). The only "rocks" around would I think have been
building blocks or rubble. I shold imagine there was some repair work
going on at the Tower most of the time, so using uilding materials
for ballast would certainly be a possibility. For the same reason,
there may well have been lead about, and I imagine you would need
much less of that than rock to achieve the same effect. Also, if a
king - or even a duke - had ordered his nephews to be murdered and
disposed of, I should imagine the cost of a couple of lumps of lead
used to weigh down the bodies would not have bothered him unduly.

But of course this is all hypothetical. The only important thing is
that bodies could indeed have been disposed of by weighting and
dumping in the Thames - a method which, if TV fiction is to be
believed, has remained popular with East End gangsters, and the
London criminal underworld in general, to this day. Even so, the
murderers would need to have brought the bodies out of the royal
court, through a gate in the inner curtain wall and then through one
of the entrances in the outer curtain wall alongside the Thames, and
then, unless the tide was very high, into a boat to sink them out in
deep water. (Was this not one of the rumoured methods of disposal? I
do seem to remember something about a boat.)

My problem with a river burial is that it probably wasn't as easy as
it at first appears to pull off discreetly. The easiest thing might
have been for some VIP (ie sufficiently important to be able to leave
the Tower without being searched) to smuggle the bodies out hidden in
their luggage. They could then have been disposed of in some remote
spot.

Assuming there were two dead princes in the Tower to dispose of, of
course.

Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:

> My problem with a river burial is that it probably wasn't as easy as
> it at first appears to pull off discreetly. The easiest thing might
> have been for some VIP (ie sufficiently important to be able to leave
> the Tower without being searched) to smuggle the bodies out hidden in
> their luggage. They could then have been disposed of in some remote
> spot.
>
> Assuming there were two dead princes in the Tower to dispose of, of
> course.



Mightn't it have been easier still to take them out alive and
cooperative? They could have been told they were being rescued.

I read somewhere that the last spot they were seen alive was in the
room that houses the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the Water
Gate. I wish there had been an added detail that they were dressed
for travel, but there was not. They may have been there awaiting
departure on a barge, or they might have been just snooping around the
big impressive gears -- the Water Gate was in the lower level of the
tower that held the apartments where they lived at the time.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
>
> > My problem with a river burial is that it probably wasn't as easy
as
> > it at first appears to pull off discreetly. The easiest thing
might
> > have been for some VIP (ie sufficiently important to be able to
leave
> > the Tower without being searched) to smuggle the bodies out
hidden in
> > their luggage. They could then have been disposed of in some
remote
> > spot.
> >
> > Assuming there were two dead princes in the Tower to dispose of,
of
> > course.
>
>
>
> Mightn't it have been easier still to take them out alive and
> cooperative? They could have been told they were being rescued.
>
> I read somewhere that the last spot they were seen alive was in the
> room that houses the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the
Water
> Gate. I wish there had been an added detail that they were dressed
> for travel, but there was not. They may have been there awaiting
> departure on a barge, or they might have been just snooping around
the
> big impressive gears -- the Water Gate was in the lower level of the
> tower that held the apartments where they lived at the time.
>
> Katy

I do agree that would have been the easiest and most reliable
procedure - even if you just wanted to kill them somewhere more
private! That's why I added my caveat. I was just joining in the
discussion on how one might dispose of the bodies if one HAD had them
murdered in the Tower - burial under stairs, throwing into the
Thames, etc.

The only thing that bothers me about them walking about alive and
publicly is that, unless they were taken away by water in the dark of
the night, too many people would have remembered it. The propaganda
stories told about their end would probably have been quite
different. Of course, they might well have cooperated in a night-time
journey. Where to, I wonder?

That last spot where you read they were seen alive is not, I think,
reliable. I think the portcullis that was meant was probably the one
in the Garden/ Bloody Tower, which was the gateway between the
(private) inner and (public) outer wards (if you recall, it directly
faces the Watergate). The only reason this tower has been identified
as where the Princes were kept, however, is:
a) its name (which it actually earned in Tudor times); and
b) the fact that it gave on to the Constable's garden, and the boys
were seen playing the the garden and shooting at the butts.
Helen Maurer's excellent article in former Ricardians (spread over
two issues) goes into this in a lot of detail. The Constable's garden
is in the inner ward of the Tower, and could not have been seen by
the public. I would also add that it was a bit small for archery
practice. There was, apparently, a rather larger royal garden formed
out of part of the outer ward, and the usual king's lodging at that
period was the Lanthorn Tower, which connected with that garden. I
don't know how high the wall was cutting off that garden from the
public spaces, but I would be surprised if it was low enough to look
over. My personal favourite the for the archery practice is the royal
garden out on Tower Hill, but I suspect the Lanthorn Tower is where
the boys were initially lodged. After that, as the earliest sources
agree, the boys were withdrawn further inside the inner ward, out of
public view. I don't think any of the early sources claim that they
were ever seen again after that.

Marie


>

I'm not sure that the boys would necessarily be resistant to leaving their lodgings in the Tower if they were told they were being rescued.

As it happens I'm in the midst of reading a book about the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in Ekaterinburg in 1918. According to the testimony of those who shot them, they were woken about 1am and told that they were being moved elsewhere because of danger from counter-revolutionary elements. They got dressed, assembled some possessions and went quite trustingly down to a semi-basement room where they were left to wait. A few minutes later they were all shot (Nicholas, his wife, son, four daughters, their doctor and three servants).

I suspect if you were to wake two youngish boys (12 and 10) in the middle of the night, and tell them that they were being rescued, they would be quite excited and only too keen to get moving.

"Sirs, the Lord Buckingham has sent me to move you to a safer place
where your uncle Richard cannot reach you....."

Could be.

Richard G

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that the boys would necessarily be resistant to
leaving their lodgings in the Tower if they were told they were being
rescued.
>
> As it happens I'm in the midst of reading a book about the murder
of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in Ekaterinburg in 1918. According
to the testimony of those who shot them, they were woken about 1am
and told that they were being moved elsewhere because of danger from
counter-revolutionary elements. They got dressed, assembled some
possessions and went quite trustingly down to a semi-basement room
where they were left to wait. A few minutes later they were all shot
(Nicholas, his wife, son, four daughters, their doctor and three
servants).
>
> I suspect if you were to wake two youngish boys (12 and 10) in the
middle of the night, and tell them that they were being rescued, they
would be quite excited and only too keen to get moving.
>
>
>
>

"Your uncle Harry of Buckingham". Often forgotten he was their uncle
too.
Paul


On 20 Feb 2008, at 17:57, rgcorris wrote:

> "Sirs, the Lord Buckingham has sent me to move you to a safer place
> where your uncle Richard cannot reach you....."
>
> Could be.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure that the boys would necessarily be resistant to
> leaving their lodgings in the Tower if they were told they were being
> rescued.
>>
>> As it happens I'm in the midst of reading a book about the murder
> of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in Ekaterinburg in 1918. According
> to the testimony of those who shot them, they were woken about 1am
> and told that they were being moved elsewhere because of danger from
> counter-revolutionary elements. They got dressed, assembled some
> possessions and went quite trustingly down to a semi-basement room
> where they were left to wait. A few minutes later they were all shot
> (Nicholas, his wife, son, four daughters, their doctor and three
> servants).
>>
>> I suspect if you were to wake two youngish boys (12 and 10) in the
> middle of the night, and tell them that they were being rescued, they
> would be quite excited and only too keen to get moving.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> "Your uncle Harry of Buckingham". Often forgotten
> he was their uncle too.

But that begs the question- why would they trust him
more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
the other way around. At least Richard was their
father's brother.


Take care,
Rogue

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com




>------- Original Message -------
>From : Paul Trevor
Bale[mailto:paultrevor@...]
>Sent : 2/20/2008 1:30:16 PM
>To :
>Cc :
>Subject : RE: Re: Re:
The Tower: Any other bones?
>

Paul


On 20 Feb 2008, at 17:57, rgcorris wrote:

> "Sirs, the Lord Buckingham has sent me to move you
to a safer place
> where your uncle Richard cannot reach you....."
>
> Could be.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , A
LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure that the boys would necessarily be
resistant to
> leaving their lodgings in the Tower if they were
told they were being
> rescued.
>>
>> As it happens I'm in the midst of reading a book
about the murder
> of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in Ekaterinburg
in 1918. According
> to the testimony of those who shot them, they were
woken about 1am
> and told that they were being moved elsewhere
because of danger from
> counter-revolutionary elements. They got dressed,
assembled some
> possessions and went quite trustingly down to a
semi-basement room
> where they were left to wait. A few minutes later
they were all shot
> (Nicholas, his wife, son, four daughters, their
doctor and three
> servants).
>>
>> I suspect if you were to wake two youngish boys
(12 and 10) in the
> middle of the night, and tell them that they were
being rescued, they
> would be quite excited and only too keen to get moving.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"






Yahoo! Groups Links



(Yahoo! ID required)


mailto:[email protected]

On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Rogue wrote:

> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
>> "Your uncle Harry of Buckingham". Often forgotten
>> he was their uncle too.
>
> But that begs the question- why would they trust him
> more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
> the other way around. At least Richard was their
> father's brother.
>
>
> Take care,
> Rogue

That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.

Gilda

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> > "Your uncle Harry of Buckingham". Often forgotten
> > he was their uncle too.
>
> But that begs the question- why would they trust him
> more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
> the other way around. At least Richard was their
> father's brother.


Because they knew Buckingham, or at least young Richard did.
Buckingham was raised at court, as was Richard, and he spent much of
his time there. (Young Edward was at Ludlow from age 4, I believe,
until he was brought back to London after Edward IV's death, for his
coronation.)

Gloucester (our Richard), on the other hand, was a stranger from the
North who was rarely at court.

Katy

--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Rogue wrote:
>
> > Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> >> "Your uncle Harry of Buckingham". Often forgotten
> >> he was their uncle too.
> >
> > But that begs the question- why would they trust him
> > more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
> > the other way around. At least Richard was their
> > father's brother.

>
> That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
> their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.



That's a possibility, too. A favorite theory of mine, in fact.

Katy

Thanks Katy.
I only mentioned the uncle bit as the original posting just called
Buckingham my lord, when he was uncle too as well as Richard,
something worth reminding people of. Not the only possible uncle in
the loop.
And I agree with you Katy - goodness this is becoming a habit!:-) -
about Richard of York knowing Buckingham well.
Paul


On 20 Feb 2008, at 20:46, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>>> "Your uncle Harry of Buckingham". Often forgotten
>>> he was their uncle too.
>>
>> But that begs the question- why would they trust him
>> more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
>> the other way around. At least Richard was their
>> father's brother.
>
>
> Because they knew Buckingham, or at least young Richard did.
> Buckingham was raised at court, as was Richard, and he spent much of
> his time there. (Young Edward was at Ludlow from age 4, I believe,
> until he was brought back to London after Edward IV's death, for his
> coronation.)
>
> Gloucester (our Richard), on the other hand, was a stranger from the
> North who was rarely at court.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

oregonkaty wrote in response to me:

> But that begs the question- why would they trust him
> more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
> the other way around. At least Richard was their
> father's brother.

> >Because they knew Buckingham, or at least young
Richard did.

I take your point, but knowing does not necessarily
equate to trusting. Buckingham was never exactly a
friend to the Wydevilles, was he? Whereas if young
Richard spent much time around his father, he
probably heard Uncle Richard talked up like mad. One
can imagine Edward during the northern campaign
telling his boy about their uncle leading his armies
to save them from the Scots. That kind of thing could
make a young man of that time pretty keen on his
uncle, sight unseen. :)


Take care,
Rogue


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

Gilda Felt wrote:

> That was my thought. They could have
> just as well been told that their
> Uncle Richard was having them moved
> for their own safety.

I thought so too. If it came from Buckingham, or a
servant in his colors, that seems a more plausible
story than "I'm protecting you from your uncle!"
considering how chummy he was with Richard.

Plus by that time even the boys' mother had released
her other children and herself into Richard's care.
Maybe the boys didn't know Richard well, but if their
mother (and obviously, their father) thought he was
okay, why would they take somebody else's word that
he was dangerous?


Take care,
Rogue

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
>
> oregonkaty wrote in response to me:
>
> > But that begs the question- why would they trust him
> > more than Richard? I think it would more likely be
> > the other way around. At least Richard was their
> > father's brother.
>
> > >Because they knew Buckingham, or at least young
> Richard did.
>
> I take your point, but knowing does not necessarily
> equate to trusting. Buckingham was never exactly a
> friend to the Wydevilles, was he? Whereas if young
> Richard spent much time around his father, he
> probably heard Uncle Richard talked up like mad. One
> can imagine Edward during the northern campaign
> telling his boy about their uncle leading his armies
> to save them from the Scots. That kind of thing could
> make a young man of that time pretty keen on his
> uncle, sight unseen. :)


Remember, though, that when Gloucester's party overtook that of Lord
Rivers, which was escorting Edward to London for his coronation, at
Stony Stratford, Richard ordered Edward off his horse, took charge of
him, and put Rivers in custody. Rivers, the uncle whom Edfward would
have been most familiar with since he was with him at Ludlow for
years, was later executed on Richard's orders. I don't think young
Edward would be fond of Gloucester, even if his father had been.

Katy

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Gilda Felt wrote:
>
> > That was my thought. They could have
> > just as well been told that their
> > Uncle Richard was having them moved
> > for their own safety.
>
> I thought so too. If it came from Buckingham, or a
> servant in his colors, that seems a more plausible
> story than "I'm protecting you from your uncle!"
> considering how chummy he was with Richard.


Besides which, Buckingham was Constable of London, if I have the title
correctly. That outranked Brackenbury, who was Constable of the
Tower. Buckingham had the authority to release or remove anyone he
pleased from the Tower in any manner he pleased, whether it was riding
out the Lion's Gate at noon with a trumpet fanfare or slipping
secretly out the Water Gate in dead of night on a barge with muffled oars.

Katy

On 21 Feb 2008, at 00:58, Rogue wrote:

> I take your point, but knowing does not necessarily
> equate to trusting. Buckingham was never exactly a
> friend to the Wydevilles, was he?

This is all part of the enigma. Was he a friend of the Woodvilles? He
was married to the queen's sister and had children with her. Though
it is said he later went on to resent the marriage, he never tried to
divorce her, or live a separate life. So who knows. But he was around
the court all the time, so young Richard would have known this
particular uncle well.
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would have been
safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he had
their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was having
them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move, although
other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could have been
used as an explanation.

Richard G

--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
> their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.
>
> Gilda
>

But if you were a 12 or 10 year old boy, would you actually stop to think about whether there was anywhere that was a place of greater safety than the Tower? I suspect that you would be heartily bored with being cooped up, and only too pleased to be getting a change of scene (and an exciting night-time journey to get there). By the time you started to wonder just what was going on, you might well be going into the river with the medieval equivalent of concrete boots.

Ann



----- Original Message ----
From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February, 2008 1:10:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Tower: Any other bones?

Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would have been
safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he had
their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was having
them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move, although
other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could have been
used as an explanation.

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@.. .> wrote:
>
> That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
> their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.
>
> Gilda
>

in the medieval era a 10 to 12 year old boy, particularily from the peerage class was already *being* schooled in estate management and warrior skills. these kids were far more mature thinking than children born after the implentation of child labour laws. in the medieval era some 13 year olds were already at university.

we tend to not realise or we tend to forget that these people led very different lifestyles compared to ours. children were often married very young. i.e. prince richard age 5ish to anne mowbray age 3ish. nowadays we'd be aghast if we heard of such a marriage. but then it was the norm.

peerage children were often separated from their birth parent/s. especially girls who were sent to live with the grooms family. boys were at about age seven sent to live with another noble family to gain military skills. these were the pages.

given e5 and richard were among the highest ranking nobles at the time, they would have been already taught to think like young adults. they had tutors, mentors and advisors. they were already being schooled in decision making.

they knew about the power one could wield over another because of rank, or lack thereof. ergo, a suggestion of moving the boys to safety for political reasons would not require lots of explanation.

they would also have been cognizant of their "fall from grace" via titulus regis. they would know the loss of the rank by being illegitimate...but they would also know that they were still a king's child, and therefore had some entitlement to preferred treatment.

they also knew that there were scads of royal estates that would be able to offer them a noble lifestyle. the boys were seen after r3 coronation. they would know they had lost the crown unless someone would champion their cause.

the tower was a fortress. logically, being moved to a less fortified location could offer them more opportunity to be rescued and/or more freedom to live a noble and less restricted life. therefore, anyone telling them they were being moved from the tower would be greeted with anticipation of more chance and opportunity.

remember e5 had even been an uncrowned king for several weeks. during that time frame he would have had royal advisors. the situtation would have begun to change after june 10, 1483, and definitely after june 23.

those kids knew they were in jeopardy and that they were pawns in the power game. rescue/removal from the tower equalled opportunity and risk. they were schooled in these *games*.

roslyn

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
But if you were a 12 or 10 year old boy, would you actually stop to think about whether there was anywhere that was a place of greater safety than the Tower? I suspect that you would be heartily bored with being cooped up, and only too pleased to be getting a change of scene (and an exciting night-time journey to get there). By the time you started to wonder just what was going on, you might well be going into the river with the medieval equivalent of concrete boots.

Ann

----- Original Message ----
From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February, 2008 1:10:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Tower: Any other bones?

Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would have been
safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he had
their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was having
them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move, although
other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could have been
used as an explanation.

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@.. .> wrote:
>
> That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
> their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.
>
> Gilda
>

Let's not forget that the Tower at the time was a vibrant village
during the day, and that most of the people stayed there after the
gates were closed at night. I doubt they were "cooped up" as such.
Watched and guarded, yes, but not shut up indoors all the time.
The royal apartments were regularly used by members of the royal
family throughout the Middle Ages, and into the Tudor period, until
that dear Henry VIII caused so much blood to be shed within its walls
that the Tower got it's ghastly reputation and they stayed away,
although Elizabeth was dressed there before her coronation. Must have
been confronting for her:- "Nice day Bessy! If you look out there
you can see where your dad had your mum's head cut off!"
Paul


On 21 Feb 2008, at 15:14, A LYON wrote:

> But if you were a 12 or 10 year old boy, would you actually stop to
> think about whether there was anywhere that was a place of greater
> safety than the Tower? I suspect that you would be heartily bored
> with being cooped up, and only too pleased to be getting a change
> of scene (and an exciting night-time journey to get there). By the
> time you started to wonder just what was going on, you might well
> be going into the river with the medieval equivalent of concrete
> boots.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February, 2008 1:10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: The Tower: Any other bones?
>
> Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would have
> been
> safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he had
> their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was having
> them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move, although
> other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could have
> been
> used as an explanation.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@.. .> wrote:
>>
>> That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
>> their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.
>>
>> Gilda
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I was thinking of 'cooping up' in a relative sense, i.e. within the Tower itself. The boys may not have been kept indoors all the time, but their freedom of movement was circumscribed, their opportunities for activity probably quite limited - i.e. no hunting or riding. And though they were brothers they were not necessarily pals - after all, they had lived most of their lives apart. I have visions of a few fights between them, even if that is in part a reaction against the lovey-dovey portrayal of all those Victorian paintings!

And I take Roslyn's point that 10-12 year olds then would be vastly more mature than their present-day equivalents. I worked out a long time ago that the sentimental view of Edward V and Richard of York as sweet little boys was way off track.

Ann


----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February, 2008 5:56:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Tower: Any other bones?

Let's not forget that the Tower at the time was a vibrant village
during the day, and that most of the people stayed there after the
gates were closed at night. I doubt they were "cooped up" as such.
Watched and guarded, yes, but not shut up indoors all the time.
The royal apartments were regularly used by members of the royal
family throughout the Middle Ages, and into the Tudor period, until
that dear Henry VIII caused so much blood to be shed within its walls
that the Tower got it's ghastly reputation and they stayed away,
although Elizabeth was dressed there before her coronation. Must have
been confronting for her:- "Nice day Bessy! If you look out there
you can see where your dad had your mum's head cut off!"
Paul

On 21 Feb 2008, at 15:14, A LYON wrote:

> But if you were a 12 or 10 year old boy, would you actually stop to
> think about whether there was anywhere that was a place of greater
> safety than the Tower? I suspect that you would be heartily bored
> with being cooped up, and only too pleased to be getting a change
> of scene (and an exciting night-time journey to get there). By the
> time you started to wonder just what was going on, you might well
> be going into the river with the medieval equivalent of concrete
> boots.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@hotmail. com>
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February, 2008 1:10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: The Tower: Any other bones?
>
> Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would have
> been
> safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he had
> their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was having
> them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move, although
> other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could have
> been
> used as an explanation.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@.. .> wrote:
>>
>> That was my thought. They could have just as well been told that
>> their Uncle Richard was having them moved for their own safety.
>>
>> Gilda
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:

> Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would have
> been
> safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he had
> their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was having
> them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move, although
> other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could have
> been
> used as an explanation.
>
> Richard G

**Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If that was
the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.

Gilda

Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently Margaret
Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling





--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
>
> > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would
have
> > been
> > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he
had
> > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was
having
> > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move,
although
> > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could
have
> > been
> > used as an explanation.
> >
> > Richard G
>
> **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If that
was
> the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
>
> Gilda
>

do you have the source for this information? what book or document states or implies this?

TIA
roslyn
amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently Margaret
Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling

--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
>
> > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would
have
> > been
> > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if he
had
> > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was
having
> > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move,
although
> > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could
have
> > been
> > used as an explanation.
> >
> > Richard G
>
> **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If that
was
> the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
>
> Gilda
>

--- In , "amertzanis"
<amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently Margaret
> Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling
>



Considering that Margaret Beaufort was Henry Tudor;'s mother, my first
thought was Did she want to free them, or did she want get them into
her custody?

On the other hand, reputedly she was fond of children, so maybe she
simply wanted to provide a nice home for two left-over bastard boys.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> do you have the source for this information? what book or document
states or implies this?

The late Audrey Williamson spoke to the Tyrell heirs and related
their tradition in her book on the Princes (I think it's called 'The
Mystery of the Princes').

Re moving the Princes from the Tower, their sisters were actually
still with their mother in sanctuary until the following Easter.
Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C copy.
They name the men arrested for it, but there is no mention of
Margaret Beaufort, although she has been presented in recent years as
a possible murderer. Tudor versions of Buckingham's Rebellion claim
that Margaret was, in the planning period, in contact with Elizabeth
Woodville in sanctuary. But there's no actual evidence to link her
with the late July plot, which involved creating a diversion by
setting fire to the east London suburbs, and smuggling the boys out
while the eyes of the Tower staff were diverted. It involved some
people connected with the Mint, which was based inside the Tower.


I don't think Edward V would have trusted Richard at all, or
Buckingham, but he might have responded well to an invitation to go
and live with Auntie Buckingham.


Marie

>
> TIA
> roslyn
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently Margaret
> Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling
>
> --- In , Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
> >
> > > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would
> have
> > > been
> > > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if
he
> had
> > > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was
> having
> > > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move,
> although
> > > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could
> have
> > > been
> > > used as an explanation.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> >
> > **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If that
> was
> > the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
> >
> > Gilda
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

hi marie
you wrote:
Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C copy.
====
do you know the name or title of document? or where i might find it?

TIA
roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> do you have the source for this information? what book or document
states or implies this?

The late Audrey Williamson spoke to the Tyrell heirs and related
their tradition in her book on the Princes (I think it's called 'The
Mystery of the Princes').

Re moving the Princes from the Tower, their sisters were actually
still with their mother in sanctuary until the following Easter.
Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C copy.
They name the men arrested for it, but there is no mention of
Margaret Beaufort, although she has been presented in recent years as
a possible murderer. Tudor versions of Buckingham's Rebellion claim
that Margaret was, in the planning period, in contact with Elizabeth
Woodville in sanctuary. But there's no actual evidence to link her
with the late July plot, which involved creating a diversion by
setting fire to the east London suburbs, and smuggling the boys out
while the eyes of the Tower staff were diverted. It involved some
people connected with the Mint, which was based inside the Tower.

I don't think Edward V would have trusted Richard at all, or
Buckingham, but he might have responded well to an invitation to go
and live with Auntie Buckingham.

Marie

>
> TIA
> roslyn
> amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently Margaret
> Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling
>
> --- In , Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
> >
> > > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would
> have
> > > been
> > > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if
he
> had
> > > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard was
> having
> > > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move,
> although
> > > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could
> have
> > > been
> > > used as an explanation.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> >
> > **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If that
> was
> > the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
> >
> > Gilda
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> hi marie
> you wrote:
> Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C
copy.
> ====
> do you know the name or title of document? or where i might find
it?
>
> TIA
> roslyn

It's in a published work - Stow's Annales ('Annales or Great
Chronicle of England', by John Stow). I don't know if there are
different editions, but it was page 459 of the one I looked at.

My memory may have failed me regarding the link with the Mint, since
on checking I see that none of the men condemned were moneyers. But I
did write a note for myself that there is useful follow-up
information in the following Ricardian article:
'The Moneyers of the Tower of London and William Lord Hastings in
1472', by Jessica Freeman (Ricardian vol XVI, 2006).

Hope this helps,

Marie


>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > do you have the source for this information? what book or
document
> states or implies this?
>
> The late Audrey Williamson spoke to the Tyrell heirs and related
> their tradition in her book on the Princes (I think it's
called 'The
> Mystery of the Princes').
>
> Re moving the Princes from the Tower, their sisters were actually
> still with their mother in sanctuary until the following Easter.
> Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C
copy.
> They name the men arrested for it, but there is no mention of
> Margaret Beaufort, although she has been presented in recent years
as
> a possible murderer. Tudor versions of Buckingham's Rebellion claim
> that Margaret was, in the planning period, in contact with
Elizabeth
> Woodville in sanctuary. But there's no actual evidence to link her
> with the late July plot, which involved creating a diversion by
> setting fire to the east London suburbs, and smuggling the boys out
> while the eyes of the Tower staff were diverted. It involved some
> people connected with the Mint, which was based inside the Tower.
>
> I don't think Edward V would have trusted Richard at all, or
> Buckingham, but he might have responded well to an invitation to go
> and live with Auntie Buckingham.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > TIA
> > roslyn
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently
Margaret
> > Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling
> >
> > --- In , Gilda Felt
> > <gildaevf@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
> > >
> > > > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if
> he
> > had
> > > > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard
was
> > having
> > > > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move,
> > although
> > > > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > used as an explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > >
> > > **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If
that
> > was
> > > the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
> > >
> > > Gilda
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

thanks marie
the john stowe wikipedia article has a link to an edited version. but it doesn't seem to go past e4.

i'll just keep looking to see if i can the writings within easy access.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> hi marie
> you wrote:
> Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C
copy.
> ====
> do you know the name or title of document? or where i might find
it?
>
> TIA
> roslyn

It's in a published work - Stow's Annales ('Annales or Great
Chronicle of England', by John Stow). I don't know if there are
different editions, but it was page 459 of the one I looked at.

My memory may have failed me regarding the link with the Mint, since
on checking I see that none of the men condemned were moneyers. But I
did write a note for myself that there is useful follow-up
information in the following Ricardian article:
'The Moneyers of the Tower of London and William Lord Hastings in
1472', by Jessica Freeman (Ricardian vol XVI, 2006).

Hope this helps,

Marie

>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > do you have the source for this information? what book or
document
> states or implies this?
>
> The late Audrey Williamson spoke to the Tyrell heirs and related
> their tradition in her book on the Princes (I think it's
called 'The
> Mystery of the Princes').
>
> Re moving the Princes from the Tower, their sisters were actually
> still with their mother in sanctuary until the following Easter.
> Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C
copy.
> They name the men arrested for it, but there is no mention of
> Margaret Beaufort, although she has been presented in recent years
as
> a possible murderer. Tudor versions of Buckingham's Rebellion claim
> that Margaret was, in the planning period, in contact with
Elizabeth
> Woodville in sanctuary. But there's no actual evidence to link her
> with the late July plot, which involved creating a diversion by
> setting fire to the east London suburbs, and smuggling the boys out
> while the eyes of the Tower staff were diverted. It involved some
> people connected with the Mint, which was based inside the Tower.
>
> I don't think Edward V would have trusted Richard at all, or
> Buckingham, but he might have responded well to an invitation to go
> and live with Auntie Buckingham.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > TIA
> > roslyn
> > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently
Margaret
> > Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling
> >
> > --- In , Gilda Felt
> > <gildaevf@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
> > >
> > > > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that would
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs, if
> he
> > had
> > > > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard
was
> > having
> > > > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the move,
> > although
> > > > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance - could
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > used as an explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > >
> > > **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If
that
> > was
> > > the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
> > >
> > > Gilda
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> thanks marie
> the john stowe wikipedia article has a link to an edited version.
but it doesn't seem to go past e4.


Roslyn,

If it's the same link I found, it's to some 15th century London
Chronicles which Stow annotated - not the same thing as
the 'Annales'. I've not been able to find an online version of the
Annales.

Marie



>
> i'll just keep looking to see if i can the writings within easy
access.
>
> roslyn
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > hi marie
> > you wrote:
> > Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C
> copy.
> > ====
> > do you know the name or title of document? or where i might find
> it?
> >
> > TIA
> > roslyn
>
> It's in a published work - Stow's Annales ('Annales or Great
> Chronicle of England', by John Stow). I don't know if there are
> different editions, but it was page 459 of the one I looked at.
>
> My memory may have failed me regarding the link with the Mint,
since
> on checking I see that none of the men condemned were moneyers. But
I
> did write a note for myself that there is useful follow-up
> information in the following Ricardian article:
> 'The Moneyers of the Tower of London and William Lord Hastings in
> 1472', by Jessica Freeman (Ricardian vol XVI, 2006).
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > do you have the source for this information? what book or
> document
> > states or implies this?
> >
> > The late Audrey Williamson spoke to the Tyrell heirs and related
> > their tradition in her book on the Princes (I think it's
> called 'The
> > Mystery of the Princes').
> >
> > Re moving the Princes from the Tower, their sisters were actually
> > still with their mother in sanctuary until the following Easter.
> > Also, the details about the plot to free them survive in a 16C
> copy.
> > They name the men arrested for it, but there is no mention of
> > Margaret Beaufort, although she has been presented in recent
years
> as
> > a possible murderer. Tudor versions of Buckingham's Rebellion
claim
> > that Margaret was, in the planning period, in contact with
> Elizabeth
> > Woodville in sanctuary. But there's no actual evidence to link
her
> > with the late July plot, which involved creating a diversion by
> > setting fire to the east London suburbs, and smuggling the boys
out
> > while the eyes of the Tower staff were diverted. It involved some
> > people connected with the Mint, which was based inside the Tower.
> >
> > I don't think Edward V would have trusted Richard at all, or
> > Buckingham, but he might have responded well to an invitation to
go
> > and live with Auntie Buckingham.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > TIA
> > > roslyn
> > > amertzanis <amertzanis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, there had been an attempt to free them and apparently
> Margaret
> > > Beaufort was involved, which, quite frankly, is mind-boggling
> > >
> > > --- In , Gilda Felt
> > > <gildaevf@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:10 AM, rgcorris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Except that where would Richard have moved them to that
would
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > safer than the Tower, from either his viewpoint or theirs,
if
> > he
> > > had
> > > > > their best welfare at heart ? If they had been told Richard
> was
> > > having
> > > > > them moved, their safety was an unlikely reason for the
move,
> > > although
> > > > > other options - more congenial quarters, for instance -
could
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > used as an explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > **Hadn't there recently been an attempt to "rescue" them? If
> that
> > > was
> > > > the case, the Tower wasn't as safe as previously thought.
> > > >
> > > > Gilda
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3248605/Lost-film-footage-of-Edwardian-Londo
n-discovered.html

Interesting

Carole M. Rike
Word Catering, Ltd.
PRINTING SOLUTIONS
48299 Stafford Road . Tickfaw, LA 70466