Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:06 pm
May 7, 2010
Offline
After the wonderful success in finding Richard III I have just been reading that they are now on the hunt for Alfred the Great and Henry I. It almost makes you wish that Bluff Hal and all his wives had each been buried here and there with no real markers etc so they too could be ‘discovered’ and have facial reconstructions and all.
Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60
8:40 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
I’d heard about Alfred the Great but not about Henry I. I’m not too sure about all this hunting for more dead monarchs – smacks too much of jumping on the bandwagon for me
1:13 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I agree, Bella. I understand some people’s need to find the remains of former monarchs. But, since it comes on the heels of Richard III, it seems more historians and archaeologists wanting to capitalise on the aftermath of the wonderful find in Leicester.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
2:32 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Personally, I’d rather them be looking for the dead of WWI and WWII and identifying them.
Though if they could find the White Ship(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Ship) that would be a good thing.
It's always bunnies.
2:37 pm
January 31, 2013
Offline
Finding the White Ship would be pretty cool. Underwater archeology is really interesting.
Wish they could take Richard’s DNA and compare it to the remains (they claim) are of the Princes in the Tower. I’ve always wondered if they really are.
That’s one mystery I wish they would solve…
At times I almost dream, I too have spent a life the sages' way,
And tread once more familiar paths. Perchance I perished in an arrogant self-reliance
Ages ago; and in that act, a prayer For one more chance went up so earnest, so
Instinct with better light let in by death, That life was blotted out—not so completely
But scattered wrecks enough of it remain Dim memories as now, when once more seems The goal in sight again. -- Robert Browning, Paracelsus
11:10 pm
June 15, 2012
Offline
Yeah, but the officials at the abbey have already come out saying their position on that hasn’t changed. I think they are scared to have tests done in case they turn out to be someone else, then they are left with a big, irrelevant urn and some anonymous bones they will need to do something else with. They would rather leave things as they are. Seems a little bit cowardly to me though…given the huge uncertainty around those bones, wouldn’t it be better to *know*, rather than maybe have the wrong bones presented as the princes?
1:49 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
An article from the Uk Guardian about why testing is/was denied on the Prince’s bones. I understand both sides of the argument. As a lover of history, it would be interesting to know more about the bones, and whether they are the Princes. However, I also understand the Abbey and Crown’s position. As Gill pointed out, the fear of what to do with the bones, if they are not Edward and Richard. But, also the fear of opening the flood gates of further testing on other remains.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
6:35 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I actually wonder what happened to King Harold’s body? at Hastings. No one actually knows (as far as I know) where his body was taken? I do know however that his mistress Edith Swan-neck did remove it somewhere after William had ponced off up to London.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:39 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Am I missing some part of this story? Is there a story that says two anonymous boys were buried there so people would believe it was the Princes? I am not being sarcastic here. I’m trying to understand why there is doubt that these are the Princes’ bones.
8:40 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Some of the bones were discovered to be animal bones when the urn was opened in 1933 by a team who agreed that the bodies were of 2 young children . The elder was 11-13 and the younger was 7-11.
The skeletons are not complete however. And there was no attempt to sex the bones at the time.
However IIRC, there was facial similarities between 1 of the skulls and that of Anne of Mowbray to whom the Princes were distant cousins.
It's always bunnies.
9:16 pm
January 31, 2013
Offline
In Alison Weir’s book, “The Princes in the Tower”, she states that dental evidence indicates a familial relationship between Anne of Mowbray’s bones and the ones in the urn.
I just thought with all this stuff coming out about Richard III being found, they might want to try DNA testing with the bones in the urn, and since the last time they examined the bones, we have come a VERY long way in forensic anthropology and in genetic testing, and reconstruction. Just my two cents though….
At times I almost dream, I too have spent a life the sages' way,
And tread once more familiar paths. Perchance I perished in an arrogant self-reliance
Ages ago; and in that act, a prayer For one more chance went up so earnest, so
Instinct with better light let in by death, That life was blotted out—not so completely
But scattered wrecks enough of it remain Dim memories as now, when once more seems The goal in sight again. -- Robert Browning, Paracelsus
11:16 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
black_mamba said
In Alison Weir’s book, “The Princes in the Tower”, she states that dental evidence indicates a familial relationship between Anne of Mowbray’s bones and the ones in the urn.
I just thought with all this stuff coming out about Richard III being found, they might want to try DNA testing with the bones in the urn, and since the last time they examined the bones, we have come a VERY long way in forensic anthropology and in genetic testing, and reconstruction. Just my two cents though….
Actually you are right. There is more of a chance of putting to bed the Princes mystery once and for all. If the bones they found all those years ago are truly the Princes (Minus the Animal bones) they actually should be recognised and not just guessed at, I would certainly like to see what they looked like too, we know so little about them anyway it would be nice to knw what they looked like at the very least.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
11:49 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
In order to do DNA testing on the bones, they would need to find a female line descendant of Elizabeth Wydville ( ie a mother/daughter/grand-daughter line).
They were lucky enough to find a descendant of Anne of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III to check against the remains of Richard which were found last year.
It's always bunnies.
12:18 pm
January 18, 2013
Offline
Anyanka said
In order to do DNA testing on the bones, they would need to find a female line descendant of Elizabeth Wydville ( ie a mother/daughter/grand-daughter line).
They were lucky enough to find a descendant of Anne of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III to check against the remains of Richard which were found last year.
couldn’t they use the same descentant to test the boys? Its the same family after all? Or doesn’t it work like that? If not couldn’t they test Richard III’s remains with that of theboys, surely as their uncle they would match if they are who we think they are?
Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!
1:43 pm
June 15, 2012
Offline
When they were found an assumption was made that they were the princes. But in fact a number of children’s skeletons have been found in the Tower precincts, sometimes in pairs. The Tower area has been inhabited for a long, long time, centuries even before it was built. I’m a little wary of any so-called evidence put forward by Weir – her book on Richard was wildly biased, histrionic and inaccurate. She left out evidence that did not suit her and often put forward some hypothesis, only to start using it as a proven fact a few pages later. Her book on the princes was a mess. If I recall correctly, she made the claim about the relationship with Anne Mowbray based on some congenitally missing teeth. I’ve read elsewhere that this was nowhere near as rare as Weir made out, and was common enough to render it useless as evidence of relationships.
2:16 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
KellyMarie said
Anyanka said
In order to do DNA testing on the bones, they would need to find a female line descendant of Elizabeth Wydville ( ie a mother/daughter/grand-daughter line).
They were lucky enough to find a descendant of Anne of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III to check against the remains of Richard which were found last year.
couldn’t they use the same descentant to test the boys? Its the same family after all? Or doesn’t it work like that? If not couldn’t they test Richard III’s remains with that of theboys, surely as their uncle they would match if they are who we think they are?
not for mitrochronidal DNA which is passed mother to child and so is only traceable down through female descenants in a mother/daughter line. Sons while inheriting the maternal DNA don’t transmit it.
The genetic mixing over 500 years renders the use of many other markers as a risky business.
Should the present royal family allow the exhumement of Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville and the 2 princes and allow for testing of thier DNA, there would be a better chance of establishing the relationship if the DNA is in good enough condition to be used.
It's always bunnies.
3:10 pm
January 18, 2013
Offline
Anyanka said
not for mitrochronidal DNA which is passed mother to child and so is only traceable down through female descenants in a mother/daughter line. Sons while inheriting the maternal DNA don’t transmit it.
The genetic mixing over 500 years renders the use of many other markers as a risky business.
Should the present royal family allow the exhumement of Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville and the 2 princes and allow for testing of thier DNA, there would be a better chance of establishing the relationship if the DNA is in good enough condition to be used.
Ah right I understand! Is that why they were saying that the test wouldn’t have been possible in a generation from now since the last descendant was a male?
Oh yea I never thought of them exhuming Elizabeth Wydville. I can’t see that happening somehow, would be interesting though
Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!
5:00 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Am I right in thinking that the Bones found were interred with what they believe was both their parents? shouldn’t be too much of a issue to discover the truth now they have confirmed DNA of Richards, just a mtter of a little bit of science and maybe some common sence to figure it out what to do next. However the real mystery suppsing they do do some diddling would still be, who actually killed the Princes?
That is one mystery we will perhaps never answer, in our life time perhaps..
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:31 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Thanks everyone!
12:12 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
I think instead of looking for other lost kings or identifying the Princes, money must be poured into finding the remains of the Edward VI, who was cast away into a beggar’s grave in the grounds of the royal court in the dead of night, while someone went out and found a poor beggar boy of similar age, killed him and used the body to fool, I don’t know, the cleaning crew of the court
