Searching for two more Kings | Page 2 | Off Topic Chit-Chat | 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
Searching for two more Kings
February 10, 2013
12:44 pm
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

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..

No. they found the bones now in Westminster buried underneath the foundations of some medieval stairs. About ten feet deep apparently – that alone makes me raise an eyebrow. Imagine someone digging down TEN FEET into the hard packed ground underneath stair foundations, in the middle of the night, in the highly populated Tower, and NO ONE apparently noticed. TEN FEET – I mean, why would you bother digging down so far in such an awkward and difficult location? Some historians speculate the bones might be far older – maybe even Roman, but unless they allow carbon dating we will never know.

However there is also a story that when Edward IV’s and Elizabeth Woodville’s tomb was opened there were two unidentified coffins in there. Some people claim they were other children of theirs who died in childhood, others say they could be the princes. I don’t know much about that story though.

February 10, 2013
4:14 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you Gill. I don’t know why, but I thought the bones they found in the tower were hastily buried with Edward and Lizzy.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

February 10, 2013
7:38 pm
Avatar
KellyMarie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 93
Member Since:
January 18, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes I’ve heard that story as well. But wasn’t the bones believed to be a 14 year old female, so that would be the 2nd eldest child they lost, Mary was it? Then the 3rd little boy they had, George who was 2. The ages wouldn’t have added up to the Princes, more so the younger one obviously.

Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!

February 10, 2013
8:39 pm
Avatar
black_mamba
Texas, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
January 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill1978 said

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

That would be interesting! I believe he was buried in the courtyard of the palace he died in, right? Although for the life of me I can’t remember what Palace it was……

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

February 10, 2013
11:55 pm
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

KellyMarie said

Yes I’ve heard that story as well. But wasn’t the bones believed to be a 14 year old female, so that would be the 2nd eldest child they lost, Mary was it? Then the 3rd little boy they had, George who was 2. The ages wouldn’t have added up to the Princes, more so the younger one obviously.

That rings a bell…but there are always people who will point to any children’s skeletons that are found and screech “it’s the princes!!” regardless of evidence to the contrary. The ones in Westminster were examined back in the 1930s, but they started from the assumption that these were the princes and did not even bother ascertaining what sex they were!

February 11, 2013
4:14 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

depends if forensics were advanced enough to differaniate between male and female skeletons especially in pre-teen ages when the bones are almost identical.

Puberty changes skeletal form as well as soft tissue.

It's always bunnies.

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: 427746

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1713

Posts: 23079

Newest Members:

albakl4, Michaelfen, RamonTuP, LonnieMef, FSUimance, Lefferttault

Administrators: Claire: 959