Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Child marriage, child murder and more bones of contention

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Hanesyddol - Historical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1931

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Child marriage, child murder and more bones of contention Reply with quote

It is worth mentioning some excellent evidence for Richard iii's guilt in murdering his nephews. Edward iv had married for love himself but used his children in a quite cynical way.

When his younger son Prince Richard was four, his father made him go through a wedding to another child, Ann Mowbray, an older woman of six. This was because she was Duchess of Norfolk, hereditary earl marshal of England and the richest little girl in the country. Even at the time, the legality of marriage at their tender ages was very dubious, but no one dared challenge what the king had decreed.

Ann died of natural causes aged nearly nine. Edward iv was undaunted. He forced through an act of Parliament, ensuring that Prince Richard would inherit everything. This little boy of course later became the younger prince in the Tower.

In 1933 doctors were permitted to examine the skeletons of two children found in a chest buried under 'a great heap of stones' in the Tower of London in 1674 and long believed to be those of the princes. The chest had been found either under or adjacent to a staircase, just where Thomas More had said they were buried when writing in the early 1500s.


In the 1930s, it was not possible to tell the sex of skeletons of children who died before puberty. This was before DNA testing. So it was not even possible to be sure that the children were not girls or that one of them was.But Dr Wright took it for granted that the children were the princes, referring to the elder one as Edward throughout.

The elder one had a blood coloured stain on 'his' skull which was then said to indicate suffocation but this is no longer accepted. The elder child also had terrible dental lesions caused by histiocytosis X which usually affects boys.

The child must have had agonising toothache when 'he' was still alive. We know that young Edward's doctor was attending him. I am not sure if it was for toothache but someone may know.

The Wormian bones in the skull suggested that the children were related to each other. In 1964 workmen clearing ground for a housing estate accidentally dug up Ann Mowbray's coffin which was so clearly marked as to leave no doubt of her identity.

Her body was medically examined before being given another Christian burial. She was very well preserved and still had long red hair.


More pertinently, she had -or rather did not have -certain teeth. It was not that the milk teeth had fallen out and the permanent ones had not descended. They did not exist at all. This is a rare condition called hypodontia. I wonder if it is connected to inbreeding and the 'chinless wonder' phenomenon.

In any case, this is a trait that she shares with the two skeletons from the chest in the Tower. She was not just the wife of the younger boy.She was the cousin of both of them, probably through several lines of descent

. I think this is extremely strong evidence that the skeletons are those of the princes, and given their ages, if they are the boys in question, there's no way that they survived Richard iii.

It is frustrating that now we have DNA testing, the present queen will not allow the bones to be re-examined. By the way, I am puzzled by the words of the pro-Welsh and pro-Tudor historian Terry Breverton, that the lacrimal bones of the younger child are abnormal, indicating that 'he' cried 'his' eyes out.

It sounds horrible but imprecise. Terry, will you explain exactly what it means?


Last edited by marianneh on Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1931

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:39 pm    Post subject: Clarification Reply with quote

Ricardians will say that the skeletons could be those of foundation sacrifice victims. This pagan custom survived literally underground in Christian Europe for centuries. Yes, but the bodies are nowhere near the foundations, and they were found with scraps of velvet near them. Velvet was almost certainly not known when the Tower of London was built.
.

It is said that in the earlier 1600s, a sealed up room was found in the Tower of London They contained the bodies of two children who had been left to starve to death. They were about five and seven, too young to be the princes. The room was resealed.

If this story is true, it does confuse the issue. For all we know, scores of children and adults unknown to history might have been murdered and their bodies disposed of in the Tower of London, and that increases the possibility that the bones in the chest are not those of the princes.

A source that may or may not be accurate states that in 1789, workmen accidentally broke into the vault of Edward iv and Elizabeth Wydvil and then also accidentally broke into an adjacent vault containing the tombs of two mysterious unidentified children. This story does not ring true at all to me, but I'm in no position to disprove it.


If the tombs do exist, I can't believe that they are those of the boys as Elizabeth Wydvil died without knowing where her sons' bodies were, although she had no serious doubt that they were dead or that they had been murdered by Richard. Harri Tudor's Italian chronicler Polydore Vergil gave a second hand account of her reaction to the news, which, if accurate, dispel any notion that she was a cold blooded lizard queen.

She lost consciousness from shock. Then, 'coming to herself, she cried out aloud, and with lamentable shrieks made all the house ring. She struck her breast, tore...her hair [and] ...prayed also her own death ...and condemning herself for a madwoman that (being deceived by false promises) she had delivered her younger son out of sanctuary to be murdered by his enemy.'

The younger boy had been merry, joyous and playful even in the Tower, the elder was pensive and too depressed to look after himself. He said he wished his uncle would let him have his life though he lost his kingdom.He 'lingered in thought and heaviness'.

Like a victim prepared for sacrifice,' he knew he could do nothing to save his own life so, as a believing Christian, he concentrated on eternal life, seeking 'remission of his sins by daily confession' at a time when most Catholics in England went to confession only once a year.


Last edited by marianneh on Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1931

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:13 am    Post subject: Farce Reply with quote

As one of the few people who still thinks that Richard iii murdered his nephews, I have to agree with Joey Barton that his expensive reburial in 2015 is an utter farce. He didn't grant either of his nephews a decent burial. Why should he have one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Hanesyddol - Historical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games