Richard the Third

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's good that you received a genuine reply.

[Flosshilde]

This is an interesting comment - "the licence issued by the Ministry of Justice which permitted the exhumation of these remains". Is a licence required for all archaeological digs involving possible human remains? I think the police are notified if one finds remains that could be human where one wasn't expecting to, but presumably not if one is excavating somewhere where one would expect to find remains?

(Obviously one would need the permission of the landowner to conduct a dig)

[french frank]

And so I sent them a summary of the ideas and information I posted here.

I got the following 'generic response':

Dear Sir/Madam

[...] We will begin to plan an appropriate location and design for a permanent memorial to King Richard which will provide honour and dignity [..]

Meanwhile, from Westminster Abbey website, the description of 'the memorial to the two young princes':

"In 1674 some bones of children were found in the Tower and assumed to be those of the two boys. The remains were brought to the Abbey. A white marble sarcophagus to house the bones was designed by Sir Christopher Wren and made by Joshua Marshall. This is in the north aisle of Henry VII’s chapel, near Elizabeth I’s tomb. The Latin inscription (written in 1678) can be translated:

"Here lie the relics of Edward V, King of England, and Richard, Duke of York. These brothers being confined in the Tower of London, and there stifled with pillows, were privately and meanly buried, by the order of their perfidious uncle Richard the Usurper; whose bones, long enquired after and wished for, after 191 years in the rubbish of the stairs (those lately leading to the Chapel of the White Tower) were on the 17th day of July 1674, by undoubted proofs discovered, being buried deep in that place. Charles II, a most compassionate prince, pitying their severe fate, ordered these unhappy Princes to be laid amongst the monuments of their predecessors, 1678, in the 30th year of his reign."

I am currently wondering at the action of the 'Lord Protector' of the young Edward V in getting his (Edward's) parents' marriage declared invalid and Edward V, therefore, no longer the rightful king. And his brother also excluded for the same reason. Meanwhile, Richard's elder brother, the Duke of Clarence - who would have had the prior claim over Richard - had been executed for 'treason' in 1478 and therefore his descendants forfeited any claim....

There seems to have been a lot of treasonous plotting against Richard: Hastings, and the relatives of Edward IV's queen were also beheaded at this point. I believe these are historical facts.

[jean]

I am currently wondering at the action of the 'Lord Protector' of the young Edward V in getting his (Edward's) parents' marriage declared invalid and Edward V, therefore, no longer the rightful king. And his brother also excluded for the same reason...

So am I.

I can't remember how Josephine Tey answered that one, and I don't know what Philippa and the Richard III Society have to say about it.

If we opened the urn and examined the bones thought to be those of the Princes, we could at least find out if they were alive long enough to have been killed by Henry VII.

But the Queen has vetoed that, I believe.

[Anna]

Trouble is, if you open the urn of the Princes in the Tower and the DNA reveals they are a couple of street urchins and Tudor propaganda - what do you do with the bones? Major embarrassment ensues.
Best leave sleeping bones lie.
I look forward to the BBC reverential broadcast of Richard III's interment. Probably Clare Balding will front it.

[jean]

Where was Charles I's body between his execution and the Restoration?

[french frank]

So am I.

I can't remember how Josephine Tey answered that one, and I don't know what Philippa and the Richard III Society have to say about it.

If we opened the urn and examined the bones thought to be those of the Princes, we could at least find out if they were alive long enough to have been killed by Henry VII.

But the Queen has vetoed that, I believe.

Interesting inf. from wiki about the Princes in the Tower.

Given that there is no record of a sighting after 1483 , my feeling that their disappearance (and death) were all part of the same clearing of the way for Richard to be king - which included all the other known executions of 'traitors', or likely rebels who might cause trouble later.

Re DNA - It seems that two daughters of Edward IV are buried in Windsor ...

[Mr Pee]

I look forward to the BBC reverential broadcast of Richard III's interment. Probably Clare Balding will front it.

After the hash the BBC made of the Diamond Jubilee, I think I'll stick to Sky.

[MrGongGong]

After the hash the BBC made of the Diamond Jubilee, I think I'll stick to Sky.

Has Murdoch bought the bones as well ?

[aeolium]

Given that there is no record of a sighting after 1483 , my feeling that their disappearance (and death) were all part of the same clearing of the way for Richard to be king - which included all the other known executions of 'traitors', or likely rebels who might cause trouble later.

I agree, ff. The ages of the skeletons thought to be the princes (i.e. the ones discovered in Charles II's reign) were estimated in a 1933 scientific examination to be 10-13 and 7-11. It would be good to have a DNA match, and further forensic examination to review the 1933 results but if those ages were correct, and DNA tests did confirm that they were the princes, then they could not have survived RIII's reign (or, as you say, 1483). The historian in the C4 programme about the discovery of RIII said it was highly probable that they were killed in the Tower - after all, they were technically rival claimants to the throne. Why would Richard have allowed them to live?

[BBMmk2]

Trouble is, if you open the urn of the Princes in the Tower and the DNA reveals they are a couple of street urchins and Tudor propaganda - what do you do with the bones? Major embarrassment ensues.
Best leave sleeping bones lie.
I look forward to the BBC reverential broadcast of Richard III's interment. Probably Clare Balding will front it.

.....and Matt Baker with that equally nausciating Elly?

[Nick Armstrong]

nausciating

Such a great word!!

[french frank]

I've just ordered the Paul Murray Kendall biography, and the Charles Ross. Nothing if not even-handed, me. I just have to find time to read them.

[Barbirollians]

The problem I always have with the Richard III apologists is the question of who else had a motive to despatch Edward V and his brother Richard ?

[jean]

They point the finger at Henry Tudor (if the princes were still alive after Richard's death, of course.)