If you think it is difficult estimating the age of those bones in th
If you think it is difficult estimating the age of those bones in th
2008-06-04 18:44:58
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/353618.html
...... it is difficult even when young people are still alive.
...... it is difficult even when young people are still alive.
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age of those bones i
2008-06-06 14:22:05
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/353618.html
>
> ...... it is difficult even when young people are still alive.
If, huge if, those bones were ever re-examined, in actual fact how close would they be
able to put an age to them - a decade, a century?
I should think it would be very easy for the experts to tell if they were siblings or not?
Cause of death - being the bones are scant, would they ever be able to tell cause of death
- unless they had been bashed over the head.I can't see how it could be done.
DNA - if DNA were taken - whose DNA could it be tested against to ascertain if they were
the Princes or not - would it entail more tombs/graves be opened - Edward's or Elizabeth
Woodvilles at Windsor. One of Edward's sister's is buried at the Isle of Wight. I think
Cecily and Richard Plantagenets tombs no longer exist.
If permission were ever given would it solve anything?
Eileen
>
wrote:
>
> http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/353618.html
>
> ...... it is difficult even when young people are still alive.
If, huge if, those bones were ever re-examined, in actual fact how close would they be
able to put an age to them - a decade, a century?
I should think it would be very easy for the experts to tell if they were siblings or not?
Cause of death - being the bones are scant, would they ever be able to tell cause of death
- unless they had been bashed over the head.I can't see how it could be done.
DNA - if DNA were taken - whose DNA could it be tested against to ascertain if they were
the Princes or not - would it entail more tombs/graves be opened - Edward's or Elizabeth
Woodvilles at Windsor. One of Edward's sister's is buried at the Isle of Wight. I think
Cecily and Richard Plantagenets tombs no longer exist.
If permission were ever given would it solve anything?
Eileen
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age of those bones i
2008-06-06 14:45:07
The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
"a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
originally buried,
"at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
stones"
(done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
... any credence at all is beyond me!
Paul
On 6 Jun 2008, at 14:22, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/
>> 353618.html
>>
>> ...... it is difficult even when young people are still alive.
>
> If, huge if, those bones were ever re-examined, in actual fact how
> close would they be
> able to put an age to them - a decade, a century?
>
> I should think it would be very easy for the experts to tell if
> they were siblings or not?
>
> Cause of death - being the bones are scant, would they ever be
> able to tell cause of death
> - unless they had been bashed over the head.I can't see how it
> could be done.
>
> DNA - if DNA were taken - whose DNA could it be tested against to
> ascertain if they were
> the Princes or not - would it entail more tombs/graves be opened -
> Edward's or Elizabeth
> Woodvilles at Windsor. One of Edward's sister's is buried at the
> Isle of Wight. I think
> Cecily and Richard Plantagenets tombs no longer exist.
>
> If permission were ever given would it solve anything?
> Eileen
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
"a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
originally buried,
"at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
stones"
(done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
... any credence at all is beyond me!
Paul
On 6 Jun 2008, at 14:22, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/
>> 353618.html
>>
>> ...... it is difficult even when young people are still alive.
>
> If, huge if, those bones were ever re-examined, in actual fact how
> close would they be
> able to put an age to them - a decade, a century?
>
> I should think it would be very easy for the experts to tell if
> they were siblings or not?
>
> Cause of death - being the bones are scant, would they ever be
> able to tell cause of death
> - unless they had been bashed over the head.I can't see how it
> could be done.
>
> DNA - if DNA were taken - whose DNA could it be tested against to
> ascertain if they were
> the Princes or not - would it entail more tombs/graves be opened -
> Edward's or Elizabeth
> Woodvilles at Windsor. One of Edward's sister's is buried at the
> Isle of Wight. I think
> Cecily and Richard Plantagenets tombs no longer exist.
>
> If permission were ever given would it solve anything?
> Eileen
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-06 15:48:34
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> originally buried,
> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> stones"
> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> Paul
Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a wooden
facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the floor
were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground suitable
for digging into.
There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four corner
towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The third
level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken place at
Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
Katy
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> originally buried,
> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> stones"
> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> Paul
Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a wooden
facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the floor
were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground suitable
for digging into.
There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four corner
towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The third
level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken place at
Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
Katy
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-06 17:19:24
Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
moment believe it!
Paul
On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
>> originally buried,
>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
>> stones"
>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
>> Paul
>
>
> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a wooden
> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the floor
> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground suitable
> for digging into.
>
> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four corner
> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The third
> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
>
> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken place at
> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
moment believe it!
Paul
On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
>> originally buried,
>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
>> stones"
>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
>> Paul
>
>
> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a wooden
> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the floor
> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground suitable
> for digging into.
>
> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four corner
> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The third
> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
>
> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken place at
> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-06 19:48:42
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> moment believe it!
> Paul
The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this incident had taken place,
Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were missing, conducted a
thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to have the boys in his
'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have discovered the burial place.
After all it was under their very noses.
Eileen
>
> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> >> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> >> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> >> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
> >> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> >> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> >> originally buried,
> >> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> >> stones"
> >> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> >> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> > specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> > royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> > Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a wooden
> > facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the floor
> > were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground suitable
> > for digging into.
> >
> > There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four corner
> > towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> > ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The third
> > level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> > created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> > dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> > they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> > In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> > sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> >
> > It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> > the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> > reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> > might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken place at
> > Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> moment believe it!
> Paul
The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this incident had taken place,
Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were missing, conducted a
thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to have the boys in his
'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have discovered the burial place.
After all it was under their very noses.
Eileen
>
> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> >> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> >> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> >> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death - for
> >> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> >> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> >> originally buried,
> >> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> >> stones"
> >> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> >> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> > specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> > royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> > Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a wooden
> > facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the floor
> > were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground suitable
> > for digging into.
> >
> > There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four corner
> > towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> > ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The third
> > level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> > created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> > dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> > they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> > In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> > sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> >
> > It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> > the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> > reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> > might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken place at
> > Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-06 21:10:02
It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
Paul
On 6 Jun 2008, at 19:48, eileen wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
>> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
>> moment believe it!
>> Paul
>
> The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> incident had taken place,
> Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> missing, conducted a
> thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to
> have the boys in his
> 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> discovered the burial place.
> After all it was under their very noses.
> Eileen
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
>>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
>>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
>>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
>>>> for
>>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
>>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
>>>> originally buried,
>>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
>>>> stones"
>>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
>>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
>>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
>>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
>>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
>>> wooden
>>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
>>> floor
>>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
>>> suitable
>>> for digging into.
>>>
>>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
>>> corner
>>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
>>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
>>> third
>>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
>>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
>>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
>>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
>>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
>>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
>>>
>>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
>>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
>>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
>>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
>>> place at
>>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
Paul
On 6 Jun 2008, at 19:48, eileen wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
>> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
>> moment believe it!
>> Paul
>
> The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> incident had taken place,
> Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> missing, conducted a
> thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to
> have the boys in his
> 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> discovered the burial place.
> After all it was under their very noses.
> Eileen
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
>>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
>>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
>>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
>>>> for
>>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
>>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
>>>> originally buried,
>>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
>>>> stones"
>>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
>>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
>>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
>>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
>>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
>>> wooden
>>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
>>> floor
>>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
>>> suitable
>>> for digging into.
>>>
>>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
>>> corner
>>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
>>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
>>> third
>>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
>>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
>>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
>>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
>>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
>>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
>>>
>>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
>>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
>>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
>>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
>>> place at
>>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-06 22:26:54
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
> Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
> Paul
Here's a very interesting article on the subject of the bones by Helen Maurier for those
that have not read it already. It contains mention of Roman stuff found at the Tower and
also a skeleton of a Iron Age young man found very close to the sport where the bones
that are now in the Abbey were found.
When the bones were first found the laborours who discovered them cast them aside on a
rubbish tip. When they were put in the urn they were accompanied by animal and fish
bones.
Charles ll also had his own agenda in having the bones presented as the lost Royal
children. A very interesting article indeed
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdfwrote:
Eileen
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> >> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> >> moment believe it!
> >> Paul
> >
> > The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> > incident had taken place,
> > Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> > missing, conducted a
> > thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to
> > have the boys in his
> > 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> > discovered the burial place.
> > After all it was under their very noses.
> > Eileen
> >>
> >> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> >>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> >>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> >>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
> >>>> for
> >>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> >>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> >>>> originally buried,
> >>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> >>>> stones"
> >>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> >>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> >>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> >>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> >>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
> >>> wooden
> >>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
> >>> floor
> >>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
> >>> suitable
> >>> for digging into.
> >>>
> >>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
> >>> corner
> >>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> >>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
> >>> third
> >>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> >>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> >>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> >>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> >>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> >>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> >>>
> >>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> >>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> >>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> >>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
> >>> place at
> >>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
> Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
> Paul
Here's a very interesting article on the subject of the bones by Helen Maurier for those
that have not read it already. It contains mention of Roman stuff found at the Tower and
also a skeleton of a Iron Age young man found very close to the sport where the bones
that are now in the Abbey were found.
When the bones were first found the laborours who discovered them cast them aside on a
rubbish tip. When they were put in the urn they were accompanied by animal and fish
bones.
Charles ll also had his own agenda in having the bones presented as the lost Royal
children. A very interesting article indeed
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdfwrote:
Eileen
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> >> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> >> moment believe it!
> >> Paul
> >
> > The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> > incident had taken place,
> > Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> > missing, conducted a
> > thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to
> > have the boys in his
> > 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> > discovered the burial place.
> > After all it was under their very noses.
> > Eileen
> >>
> >> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> >>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> >>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> >>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
> >>>> for
> >>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> >>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> >>>> originally buried,
> >>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> >>>> stones"
> >>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> >>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> >>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> >>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> >>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
> >>> wooden
> >>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
> >>> floor
> >>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
> >>> suitable
> >>> for digging into.
> >>>
> >>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
> >>> corner
> >>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> >>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
> >>> third
> >>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> >>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> >>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> >>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> >>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> >>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> >>>
> >>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> >>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> >>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> >>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
> >>> place at
> >>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-06 22:34:37
--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
Sorry I think I have entered link incorrectly - eeek my computer skills are somewhat
lacking! I shall try again
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdf
Eileen
rdiii.net/PDFS/[email protected], Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
> > Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
> > Paul
>
> Here's a very interesting article on the subject of the bones by Helen Maurier for those
> that have not read it already. It contains mention of Roman stuff found at the Tower
and
> also a skeleton of a Iron Age young man found very close to the sport where the bones
> that are now in the Abbey were found.
> When the bones were first found the laborours who discovered them cast them aside on
a
> rubbish tip. When they were put in the urn they were accompanied by animal and fish
> bones.
> Charles ll also had his own agenda in having the bones presented as the lost Royal
> children. A very interesting article indeed
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdfwrote:
>
> Eileen
> >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> > >> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> > >> moment believe it!
> > >> Paul
> > >
> > > The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> > > incident had taken place,
> > > Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> > > missing, conducted a
> > > thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to
> > > have the boys in his
> > > 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> > > discovered the burial place.
> > > After all it was under their very noses.
> > > Eileen
> > >>
> > >> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> > >>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> > >>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> > >>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> > >>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> > >>>> originally buried,
> > >>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> > >>>> stones"
> > >>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> > >>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> > >>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> > >>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> > >>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
> > >>> wooden
> > >>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
> > >>> floor
> > >>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
> > >>> suitable
> > >>> for digging into.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
> > >>> corner
> > >>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> > >>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
> > >>> third
> > >>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> > >>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> > >>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> > >>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> > >>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> > >>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> > >>>
> > >>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> > >>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> > >>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> > >>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
> > >>> place at
> > >>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> > >>>
> > >>> Katy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Sorry I think I have entered link incorrectly - eeek my computer skills are somewhat
lacking! I shall try again
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdf
Eileen
rdiii.net/PDFS/[email protected], Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
> > Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
> > Paul
>
> Here's a very interesting article on the subject of the bones by Helen Maurier for those
> that have not read it already. It contains mention of Roman stuff found at the Tower
and
> also a skeleton of a Iron Age young man found very close to the sport where the bones
> that are now in the Abbey were found.
> When the bones were first found the laborours who discovered them cast them aside on
a
> rubbish tip. When they were put in the urn they were accompanied by animal and fish
> bones.
> Charles ll also had his own agenda in having the bones presented as the lost Royal
> children. A very interesting article indeed
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdfwrote:
>
> Eileen
> >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> > >> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> > >> moment believe it!
> > >> Paul
> > >
> > > The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> > > incident had taken place,
> > > Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> > > missing, conducted a
> > > thorough search/investigation (after all it was in his interests to
> > > have the boys in his
> > > 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> > > discovered the burial place.
> > > After all it was under their very noses.
> > > Eileen
> > >>
> > >> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> > >>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> > >>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> > >>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> > >>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> > >>>> originally buried,
> > >>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> > >>>> stones"
> > >>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> > >>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> > >>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> > >>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> > >>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
> > >>> wooden
> > >>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
> > >>> floor
> > >>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
> > >>> suitable
> > >>> for digging into.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
> > >>> corner
> > >>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> > >>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
> > >>> third
> > >>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> > >>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> > >>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> > >>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> > >>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> > >>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> > >>>
> > >>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> > >>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> > >>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> > >>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
> > >>> place at
> > >>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> > >>>
> > >>> Katy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-07 01:08:41
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@> wrote:
>
> Sorry I think I have entered link incorrectly - eeek my computer
skills are somewhat
> lacking! I shall try again
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdf
>
Thank you, Eileen, for the link to that very interesting article.
Katy
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@> wrote:
>
> Sorry I think I have entered link incorrectly - eeek my computer
skills are somewhat
> lacking! I shall try again
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/maurer_bones_part2.pdf
>
Thank you, Eileen, for the link to that very interesting article.
Katy
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-09 10:37:16
Animal bones? Certainly not impossible. I imagine a lot of UK posters have been following events in Jersey, where human remains have been found at a former children's home. There has been some argument about whether all the bone fragments found are necessarily human - and these are around 40-50 years old, not 500.
----- Original Message ----
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 6 June, 2008 10:26:49 PM
Subject: Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@. ..> wrote:
>
> It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
> Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
> Paul
Here's a very interesting article on the subject of the bones by Helen Maurier for those
that have not read it already. It contains mention of Roman stuff found at the Tower and
also a skeleton of a Iron Age young man found very close to the sport where the bones
that are now in the Abbey were found.
When the bones were first found the laborours who discovered them cast them aside on a
rubbish tip. When they were put in the urn they were accompanied by animal and fish
bones.
Charles ll also had his own agenda in having the bones presented as the lost Royal
children. A very interesting article indeed
http://www.richardi ii.net/PDFS/ maurer_bones_ part2.pdfwrote:
Eileen
>
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> >> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> >> moment believe it!
> >> Paul
> >
> > The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> > incident had taken place,
> > Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> > missing, conducted a
> > thorough search/investigatio n (after all it was in his interests to
> > have the boys in his
> > 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> > discovered the burial place.
> > After all it was under their very noses.
> > Eileen
> >>
> >> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> >>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> >>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> >>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
> >>>> for
> >>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> >>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> >>>> originally buried,
> >>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> >>>> stones"
> >>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> >>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> >>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> >>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> >>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
> >>> wooden
> >>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
> >>> floor
> >>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
> >>> suitable
> >>> for digging into.
> >>>
> >>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
> >>> corner
> >>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> >>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
> >>> third
> >>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> >>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> >>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> >>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> >>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> >>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> >>>
> >>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> >>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> >>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> >>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
> >>> place at
> >>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
----- Original Message ----
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 6 June, 2008 10:26:49 PM
Subject: Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@. ..> wrote:
>
> It's possible a Roman slave girl and a 14th century pig are in
> Westminster Abbey labelled 'Princes'!
> Paul
Here's a very interesting article on the subject of the bones by Helen Maurier for those
that have not read it already. It contains mention of Roman stuff found at the Tower and
also a skeleton of a Iron Age young man found very close to the sport where the bones
that are now in the Abbey were found.
When the bones were first found the laborours who discovered them cast them aside on a
rubbish tip. When they were put in the urn they were accompanied by animal and fish
bones.
Charles ll also had his own agenda in having the bones presented as the lost Royal
children. A very interesting article indeed
http://www.richardi ii.net/PDFS/ maurer_bones_ part2.pdfwrote:
Eileen
>
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes Katy. Your additions make it even more incredible to me that
> >> anybody who knows anything about the period and the Tower could for a
> >> moment believe it!
> >> Paul
> >
> > The whole story sucks. Always has. It is obvious that if this
> > incident had taken place,
> > Tudor when taking over the Tower, on discovering the boys were
> > missing, conducted a
> > thorough search/investigatio n (after all it was in his interests to
> > have the boys in his
> > 'care') and it would not have taken much searching to have
> > discovered the burial place.
> > After all it was under their very noses.
> > Eileen
> >>
> >> On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:48, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole provenance of those bones is based on More's story, BUT
> >>>> WITHOUT the inclusion of the part of his story that says
> >>>> "a priest of Sir Robert Brackenbury took up the bodies again and
> >>>> secretly interred them in such place, by occasion of his death -
> >>>> for
> >>>> he alone knew it - could never since come to light".
> >>>> Why has/does anybody give the bones found where More said they were
> >>>> originally buried,
> >>>> "at the stair foot, meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of
> >>>> stones"
> >>>> (done in the dead of night with nobody hearing a thing of course!)
> >>>> ... any credence at all is beyond me!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Particularly since there *is* no "foot" of the stairs that More
> >>> specified, i.e. the stairs inside the White Tower that led from the
> >>> royal apartments up to the Chapel of St John on the floor above.
> >>> Those were timber-frame stairs (open space underneath, behind a
> >>> wooden
> >>> facade that rested on the stone floor of that level. Below the
> >>> floor
> >>> were the storerooms, kitchens, and so on -- not solid ground
> >>> suitable
> >>> for digging into.
> >>>
> >>> There is no underneath of the spiral stairs in each of the four
> >>> corner
> >>> towers, either. They are a continuous spiral, from two levels below
> >>> ground up to what was originally the roof of the building. (The
> >>> third
> >>> level of the White Tower did not exist in the 15th century. It was
> >>> created much later by roofing over the original parapet walls.) The
> >>> dead spaces under the spiral stairs had been filled with rubble when
> >>> they were built, and the wedge-shaped stone steps are mortared down.
> >>> In addition, the spiral stairs are very narrow -- a man has to turn
> >>> sideways to negotiate them -- for defensive reasons,
> >>>
> >>> It is quite possible that Thomas More had never seen the interior of
> >>> the White Tower when he wrote his fantasy. There would have been no
> >>> reason for him to have ever entered it. Any government business he
> >>> might have had with the King, in the 1520s, would have taken
> >>> place at
> >>> Henry's fine modern palace of Whitehall.
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: If you think it is difficult estimating the age
2008-06-10 13:36:33
There have been a number of good articles about the "Bones in the Tower" in
the Ricardian in past years:
especially Helen Maurer's 2-part article in the December 1990 and March 1991
issues. It covers all the points
L.M.L.,
Janet
the Ricardian in past years:
especially Helen Maurer's 2-part article in the December 1990 and March 1991
issues. It covers all the points
L.M.L.,
Janet
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.