The Princes in the Tower | Page 4 | Historical Debates | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
The Princes in the Tower
August 11, 2013
11:45 pm
Avatar
Mariette
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
November 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mariette said

Olga said

Thanks Bella, found it :) It’s in print too I just can’t get it here

Olga, it’s 42% off at Book Depository at the moment if you can’t find it here.Smile
http://www.bookdepository.com/…..0007309290

The paperback is available now
http://www.bookdepository.com/…..0007309306

August 12, 2013
2:43 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I never can pick between paperbacks and hardcovers Yell Thanks Mariette, I have to get my Cromwell book from overseas too as they are still not shipping it to the suppliers here for some mysterious reason.

Bella I have been chatting to a new friend who is heavily into WOTR and she recommended reading the general books first before getting into the detailed biographies, she also said that was a good read.

Just on the remains of the Princes, I read something on the internet the other day that said the bones were found far too deep (I think it said 10 feet) for the hasty sort of burial they would have had. It is an interesting though, if they were down that far they could have dated to Roman times. We’ve got no DNA to prove it is them either.

I will check out that link to the Thomas More painting, thanks Mariette. Looks interesting!

August 12, 2013
3:35 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I never can pick between paperbacks and hardcovers Yell Thanks Mariette, I have to get my Cromwell book from overseas too as they are still not shipping it to the suppliers here for some mysterious reason.

Bella I have been chatting to a new friend who is heavily into WOTR and she recommended reading the general books first before getting into the detailed biographies, she also said that was a good read.

Just on the remains of the Princes, I read something on the internet the other day that said the bones were found far too deep (I think it said 10 feet) for the hasty sort of burial they would have had. It is an interesting though, if they were down that far they could have dated to Roman times. We’ve got no DNA to prove it is them either.

I will check out that link to the Thomas More painting, thanks Mariette. Looks interesting!

If the boys were buried that deep Olga, that to me at least says that their deaths were planned and the grave was already dug. A hasty burial I would have thought would have I should think would be about 3ft, as it would certain have to be done in a hurry. I’m sort of half inclined to think that the bones found in Charles 2nd’s reign were not of the boys at all. Until the Queen’s permission is granted for DNA testing on the bones found back then (and remember we do now at have King Richard’s bones to prove it one way or another) I think there will always be an element of doubt to just whose bones they are. It does seem very strange to me that their bodies would just be dumped under an unused or little used stairwell, which was then quickly filled in by rubble.
Something else as well when the pretenders came along why wasn’t E.W brought to court to identify them, she would have known them inside out and back to front, next to Queen Elizabeth. Had E.W simply excepted that her boys were dead? or was she told to keep right out of it.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 12, 2013
9:54 pm
Avatar
Mariette
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
November 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I never can pick between paperbacks and hardcovers Yell Thanks Mariette, I have to get my Cromwell book from overseas too as they are still not shipping it to the suppliers here for some mysterious reason.

Bella I have been chatting to a new friend who is heavily into WOTR and she recommended reading the general books first before getting into the detailed biographies, she also said that was a good read.

Just on the remains of the Princes, I read something on the internet the other day that said the bones were found far too deep (I think it said 10 feet) for the hasty sort of burial they would have had. It is an interesting though, if they were down that far they could have dated to Roman times. We’ve got no DNA to prove it is them either.

I will check out that link to the Thomas More painting, thanks Mariette. Looks interesting!

I find it hard to choose between hardcover and paperback too,lol
By the way, I can’t thank you enough for recommending the jessie Childs book on Henry Howard. It finally arrived yesterday – the illustrations are amazing. I hope you won’t have to wait too long for the Cromwell book.

That’s interesting that the remains were found so deep. It would be wonderful if permission was given to do DNA tests one day to determine the identities of the remains, but I doubt it will happen in the present Queen’s lifetime.

August 13, 2013
1:43 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bo I don’t think they would have been able to dig down that far without some sort of supporting structure, it could not have been done in secret and it would have taken ages. If the bones were in fact found buried that deeply you would have to conclude they were not the prince’s remains. When they were last looked at there was no testing done on the age of the bones, only a confirmation they were males and probably a certain age.

The theory is Elizabeth Woodville knew Richard of York was alive. She had been pretty much banished to an abbey at that point (which didn’t stop her funding rebellions against Henry VII) and Henry wanted her safely out of the way.

Oh good Mariette I’ve been meaning to read mine but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. I am now crossing my fingers my Scofield will arrive in a couple of weeks…
I understand where the Queen is coming from on that in one respect but it would certainly either put a lot of minds to rest or give us something to argue about for a few centuries more.

August 13, 2013
8:17 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Bo I don’t think they would have been able to dig down that far without some sort of supporting structure, it could not have been done in secret and it would have taken ages. If the bones were in fact found buried that deeply you would have to conclude they were not the prince’s remains. When they were last looked at there was no testing done on the age of the bones, only a confirmation they were males and probably a certain age.

The theory is Elizabeth Woodville knew Richard of York was alive. She had been pretty much banished to an abbey at that point (which didn’t stop her funding rebellions against Henry VII) and Henry wanted her safely out of the way.

Oh good Mariette I’ve been meaning to read mine but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. I am now crossing my fingers my Scofield will arrive in a couple of weeks…
I understand where the Queen is coming from on that in one respect but it would certainly either put a lot of minds to rest or give us something to argue about for a few centuries more.

It’s more likely that they were buried in a hurry. I will consede a point in the fact that it was Thomas More’s chronicles that pinpointed the exact location of the bones, but I still feel that his evidenc is perhaps slightly floored. If the bones found were those of the boys, it would have taken a bit of time to dig a hole that deep surely. and surely someone in and around the tower, (given that the inside of the Tower back then was full of people who lived and worked within the ground and was almost like a little community of it own) would have noticed something going on and may have even asked questions. a 10 foot deep hole, would have taken a fair few days to dig and more than one person to do it too.
I’m inclined to think that the bones foound in Charles 2nd time are not of the Princes, but that the boys bones have yet to be discovered.
In short we need to solve this mystery of the bones. Now we have their Uncle’s DNA there is no reason to why thse bones can’t be tested. Of course the final say so comes from the Queen on that one.
If the bones turn out to be the boys, then at least they can be given all due respect etc, but it still won’t solve who did actually kill them or how they died, or was it done on the sly or with the full backing of someone? If the bones aren’t the boys then we have yet another riddle to solve. Where are they. Is there a chance there bodies would have been chucked in the moat? I know the guard used to chuck the heads of executed criminals into the moat when they started to get a bit whiffy or when they had a new lot of head to display. This would sort of make sence, because if you think about it whoever or whatever killed them they wouldn’t want the finger of suspition pointed at them. The old law of Habeus Corpus comes to mind here. If there is no body how can they prove murder? We know now that habeus Corpus’s meaning has changed a little since then, but back then if you think about it no body meant they couldn’t prosicute.
It’s also possible that Thomas More’s account is partly accurate and that the boys bones are in that vincinity, but again I find this a little difficult to accept as someone would have noticed the ground would have been recently disturbed and asked questions.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 14, 2013
11:17 am
Avatar
Mariette
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
November 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I’m inclined to think that the bones foound in Charles 2nd time are not of the Princes, but that the boys bones have yet to be discovered.

Boleyn, I agree with you.

In short we need to solve this mystery of the bones. Now we have their Uncle’s DNA there is no reason to why thse bones can’t be tested. Of course the final say so comes from the Queen on that one.
If the bones turn out to be the boys, then at least they can be given all due respect etc, but it still won’t solve who did actually kill them or how they died, or was it done on the sly or with the full backing of someone? If the bones aren’t the boys then we have yet another riddle to solve. Where are they. Is there a chance there bodies would have been chucked in the moat?.

If the princes were murdered and their bodies weighted down and thrown into the Thames they would be very unlikely to have been found. Sadly, I don’t think we’ll ever know for certain what happened to the two princes or who was responsible for their murder/disapperance but DNA testing would certainly put a lot of minds to rest. If the bones in Westminster Abbey turned out not to belong to the princes, I wonder what would happen next.

August 14, 2013
10:06 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

my understanding is that the DNA used to identify Richard III won’t work to identify the princes because it only transmits through the female line – their female line comes from a different source (the Woodvilles, rather than the Nevilles)…

Elizabeth Woodville herself – in St Georges Chapel, Windsor – would be a potential sourse of DNA, as would any of their sisters.

personally i’m not sure its worth testing the bones in Westminster (allegedly the bones recovered from the bottom of the staircase in the Tower, but there is some dispute about that..) without also testing the two sets of ‘extra’ childrens remains in Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s tomb at Windsor. in short, workmen accidentally broke into Edward IV’s tomb and found two ‘small’ coffins in the tomb: the problem being that all his children (apart from the two princes) have known, and other burial places…

10ft is deep – very, very deep for a ‘middle-of-the-night’ secret burial. go out into your garden tomorow and dig a hole 4ft long, 1ft wide and 3ft deep – then think about how long it would take you to dig another 7ft down. you’ll very quickly decide that if you need to hide a pair of bodies, and do it quickly, that this is not the way to do it. you’d put them in a barrel or under a load of rubbish, and drive them out the front gate on a cart and then dispose of them at your lesiure elsewhere. for me, remarkable coincidence as More’s phophesy about the location of the bodies may be, a 10ft grave is just madness.

August 15, 2013
6:33 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes I agree Bob. Granted today a 10 foot hole would only take a hour or so with a suitable backhoe or whatever the cockamayme things are called, but back then it would have taken a least a week maybe more with 2 people let alone one person. So Yes I think we can sort of safely say that the bones found in Charles 2nd time, are extremely suspect.
Again you are quite right with the DNA testing after this length of time the only DNA testing they could do on the suspect bones would be microcondial DNA testing. Are there any actually living decentdants (apart from the Queen) to the Woodvilles alive today? Because if there was the problem/riddle of the bones could easily be solved without too much hassle I’m sure the Queen would give the old green light as they wouldn’t need to jab a needle in her bum to get a sample of her blood, althought they generally rely on mouth swabs now I think.
It would be very intersting though to find out the truth once and for all.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 15, 2013
7:26 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

it would have to be an all female (mother-daughter-daughter-daughter ad nauseum..) line from 1483 to the present, i’m not a student of the various bloodlines, but i doubt there’s many of them about.

if HMQ were to reverse her established view of digging her forebears up to test them for DNA and agree to test the two extranious bodies in Edward IV’s tomb, she’d probably agree to the testing of EW and Elizabeth of York to get a decent mDNA sample. sadly i doubt that will happen, given the strength of her views – Charles is reputed to have the same views…

you know, i’ve never really thought about the Woodville/Grey’s – i know the Stanley’s are still about and are still rich (with a couple of 19th century Prime Ministers if i recall correctly, and still Earls of Derby (i think!), but i’d ignored the Woodvilles. i wonder how long they lasted?

August 15, 2013
8:52 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yep true Bob. I rather think that it won’t be in our lifetimes that the monarch will agree to DNA testing. I don’t know what the Duke of Cambridge feels about it. To be honest I don’t reckon Jug ears (Prince charles) should have the throne after the Queen anyway, he’s far too staid and old hat for today’s generation. We need a monarch who is more in touch today’s sociaty, and I think the Duke of Cambridge should rule after the Queen. Maybe he would allow the boffins to take DNA samples and solve the riddle of the bones once and for all.
A few of the Grey’s I believe were executed for being traitors that I do know. As far as I can remember the Earl of Rivers (Woodville) bloodline ended in 1574, but that doesn’t mean to say there weren’t any illigetimate children down the line until that point and it’s now that offspring that hold the Woodville DNA.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 16, 2013
12:52 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Elizabeth had several sisters as well as several daughters so if some-one really wants to find a direct female line descendant, then there probably is at least one out there..

It's always bunnies.

August 16, 2013
8:37 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Elizabeth had several sisters as well as several daughters so if some-one really wants to find a direct female line descendant, then there probably is at least one out there..

That’s true Anyanka, and surely Jaquetta had siblings as well, and so did Richard Woodville.
Can we be entirely certain that the coffins found in the crypt of Elizabeth and Edward 4th weren’t moved from somewhere else? it does seem that over the years coffins within the abbey have been moved all over the place, to accomodate more people?
Even Elizabeth was moved during the reign of James 6th. Originally I’m given to believe that she was buried in a magnificent tomb on her own, but when James decided to rearrange things Elizabeth was buried on top of her sister. I can only presume that this was to do with his plans to move his mother from Peterbrough to Westminter.
Peterbrough Abbey is beautiful by the way. I love the beauty of the architechra (excuse bad spelling) and of course KOA’s tomb is there too. It seems sad that such a iconic Queen should be buried in such a simple tomb and it was the Victorians that gave her such a simple tomb.
There is also a rumour that Maria de Salanas is buried with her. (Slightly off topic here but I’m a goldmine of little snippets of trivia)

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 19, 2013
11:13 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’m just reading David Baldwin’s book on Richard of York and he has pointed out that while Thomas More said they were buried under the stairs, he also said they had been dug up afterwards and re-buried somewhere secretly. Interesting. He also confirmed the bones being found 10 feet down.

September 19, 2013
1:38 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I’m just reading David Baldwin’s book on Richard of York and he has pointed out that while Thomas More said they were buried under the stairs, he also said they had been dug up afterwards and re-buried somewhere secretly. Interesting. He also confirmed the bones being found 10 feet down.

Yes indeed it is interesting Olga, and again the 10ft questionable theory (IMO) rears it head again Also one has to ask, why (if Thomas More’s account of the whole Princes disappearence are taken as sacrosanct) were the Princes dug up and moved else where? and if they were, who did it? and who ordered it? and more to the point just whose bones were they that were identified of being that of the Princes? That one we will never know of course, but it does pose another mystery to why the bones were identified as the Princes if they are not.
The only we can really solve the mystery is by DNA testing, but the Queen (silly old duffer) is not prepared to roll over and give her consent to allow this anytime soon, on this issue. So the mystery of the Princes continues.
I’m going to get this book out from the Library too.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 19, 2013
6:08 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’m going to read that and his Richard III bio this weekend, I have been meaning to read his stuff for ages. It’s been very good so far Bo, definitely have a read.
More said a priest of Robert Brakenbury’s dug them up and moved them. The bones were 10 foot deep at foundation level apparently. There is a note added to More’s history that Raleigh saw the bones of two children when he was imprisoned in the Tower, lying on a table.

September 19, 2013
9:38 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I’m going to read that and his Richard III bio this weekend, I have been meaning to read his stuff for ages. It’s been very good so far Bo, definitely have a read.
More said a priest of Robert Brakenbury’s dug them up and moved them. The bones were 10 foot deep at foundation level apparently. There is a note added to More’s history that Raleigh saw the bones of two children when he was imprisoned in the Tower, lying on a table.

Weird with a capital WE Olga. I must admit I’ve been a bit lax in the reading department for a few weeks, had to many things to do.
I will certainly be going to the library tommorrow though, as my brain (wherever it is) is screaming out for some book fodder, to digest.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 20, 2013
6:14 am
Avatar
Steve Callaghan
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 146
Member Since:
May 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I find it hard to take Thomas More seriously as an unbiased historian, to be honest. Having said that, I’m sure he thinks that I’m a crap poster.

September 20, 2013
9:58 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said There is a note added to More’s history that Raleigh saw the bones of two children when he was imprisoned in the Tower, lying on a table.

that would strike me as unlikely in the extreme – Elizabeth I went to significant effort to have the tombs of her forebears (the York tombs at Fotheringay, (Great-Great-Grandfather, Great-Great-Grandmother, and Great-Great-Uncle), Arthur, Prince of Wales (Uncle) at Worcester etc..) repaired after the damage done to them in the reformation, so it would be odd if she had allowed the bones of her Great-Uncles to be left lying around in the Tower.

there’s no evidence that i’m aware of that suggests that she made any attempt to have Richard III’s (presumably pretty wrecked) tomb at Leicester made good however, so the above isn’t evidence of an absolute commitment to family history..

September 20, 2013
2:09 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Considering More mixed up which one of Richard’s shoulders was supposedly higher than the other Steve I am inclined to agree with you.

Funnily enough Elizabeth didn’t spend any money completing her father’s tomb Bob.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427586

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1711

Posts: 23075

Newest Members:

Goldyy, klftault, Opilacetault, 415berna, modwynVom, Thelmaaledo

Administrators: Claire: 959