The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 07-21-2010, 08:27 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427

Elizabeth of York > Margaret Tudor (married James IV of Scotland) > James V > Mary, Queen of Scots > James I and VI
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-21-2010, 06:49 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

Elizabeth of York > Margaret Tudor (married James IV of Scotland) > James V > Mary, Queen of Scots > James I and VI


Thank you for filling in the names. I really must learn these ones mustn't I?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-21-2010, 07:10 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Thank you for filling in the names. I really must learn these ones mustn't I?
Well I don't know about you...but the James and the various numerations (the sixth James in Scotland is the first James in England) always mess me up.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-22-2010, 11:59 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
But why wouldn't the Queen allow the DNA testing of the bones? Could it be that she simply thinks it is wrong to disturb the remains of persons long dead or does anyone think the Queen does not want the matter of a royal murder to be brought up again?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-22-2010, 01:52 PM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
I think the Duke of Edinburgh provided DNA in the case of "Anastasia".
DNA would prove the identity of the bones ,but , unfortunatly not who murdered them.
The present Duke of Gloucester, who is patron of The Richard III Society could provide a sample. I think there was a move in the USA amongst historians , to get the bones tested, but I am not sure if anything came of this. Perhaps members in the USA know more about this?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-22-2010, 05:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
I do think that religious considerations don't really come into it but more 'what is the point' as it was so long ago although of course it could be the she knows something that isn't generally known e.g. as Queen she has access to some family secrets that no one else is privy to - a stretch I know but just an idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-22-2010, 10:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

At first, I wondered why The Queen vetoed testing those bones; but now I can see that it would (or may) involve a lot of digging up of long dead people.

To get some real DNA to test, Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville and/or Elizabeth of York would have to be examined...
I can't see any current members of royalty producing much positive DNA after all these centuries.

But, as Iluvbertie has stated, "What's the point?"... Let sleeping dogs lie...

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-23-2010, 04:24 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 682
Depending on the preservation, there might be DNA left in their teeth. That is were the archaeologists got the DNA from for their research about genetical resistance against the Plague.
But it would indeed mean digging up many more people than just the two bodies presumed to be the princes. Because they would need to compare the DNA with that of positively identified people.

it would be very interesting to do from a scientifical point of view, but if the DNA doesn't match, then you would have a problem. What happened to the princes if they didn't die in the Tower?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-23-2010, 05:05 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
What problem? All that proving these bodies aren't the princes would do is prove these bodies weren't the princes. It wouldn't prove that the didn't die in the Tower, or that they weren't murdered, or that they were murdered etc. Proving these bodies aren't the princes changes nothing but proving they were the princes proves that they died in the Tower - and nothing more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-23-2010, 03:10 PM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
As far as I am aware ,the Queen has never vetoed the testing of the bones.
It could be that after all this time it is felt that there is little point in trying to clear up the mystery of who the bones belong to, and ,as people say , how far would one have to go .

Did other members know that Henry Tudor dated his reign from the 21st of August, when Bosworth was actually fought on the 22nd ? Henry issued a bill of attainder on Richard III and some of his followers , he must have been convinced that the battle was already won.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-24-2010, 11:54 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Where did you read this?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-27-2010, 11:08 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
I no longer have my notes , but can consult a friend who is a member of the Richard III society. I will let you know where the information came from as soon as I have it.

I think it may have been in Jeremy Potter's book "Good King Richard ? ". Potter was the president of the Richard III society, so any sources that he used would have been as reliable as they could be.
Henry's idea was ,as far as I can remember, that by dating his reign from the day before he could claim that anyone fighting against him was a traitor , and therefore their lands and titles would become forfit. A good money making scheme, however, Henry did pardon those who fought against him.

I will look into this in more detail, as I like to be as accurate as it is possible to be after over 500 years. If you are interested, and I am sure you are or you would not be contibuting to this thread, the Richard III society has an excellent website as does their American counterpart.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-21-2010, 10:43 AM
Cadiva's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Leeds, United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by lady of hay View Post
Richard indeed was never asked about the fate of the two princes . Elizabeth Woodville, the boys mother , would not, I believe have let things lie if she had suspected that they were dead. Richard was not,I believe ever accused of this crime during his lifetime ,only later by so called Tudor propogandists..
Quite so :) There were no calls for the princes to be revealed during Richard's reign and I believe this is because those who were in the know had no fear about their whereabouts.
I think the theory that Edward V died of natural causes while in the Tower and that Richard of York was removed elsewhere to live in anonymity is as valid a one as the theory that both boys were murdered without any kind of outcry at the time of their deaths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lady of hay View Post
Did other members know that Henry Tudor dated his reign from the 21st of August, when Bosworth was actually fought on the 22nd ? Henry issued a bill of attainder on Richard III and some of his followers , he must have been convinced that the battle was already won.

This was after he'd won the Battle of Bosworth though :) He proclaimed his reign had started from the day before Bosworth so he could declaim Richard as a traitor, pretty standard stuff really during the Wars of the Roses.
As far as I am aware, the Queen has never vetoed the bones being dug up from Westminster Abbey, which is where they were interred by Charles II. Also, if I remember rightly, there was an examination of either the bones (or the original documentation from the time they were discovered and reburied in the time of Charles II). That came to the conclusion that the ages of the bones were incorrect, that some animal bones were also found and that there was a possibility of some of the bones being from a female skeleton. I shall have to go away and try and find the link because it is available as a downloadable pdf I'm sure.

ETA: Ahh that's it:In 1933 King George V called upon scientists Lawrence E Tanner (Keeper of the Monuments in Westminster Abbey) and Prof William Wright to re-examine the bones in the casket. They found that it contained not only human bones but animal bones too. One skeleton was larger than the other, and many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. The bones have not since been re-examined. There has also been a different examination of the evidence surrounding the location where the bones were supposed to have been discovered which drew the conclusion that it was a different one from the "stair" they were allegedly buried under.

I also like David Baldwin's theory (in his book The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York), that Edward V died of natural causes while in the Tower and that Richard, Duke of York, was with his uncle, Richard III, at the Battle of Bosworth. He was then removed into the safe keeping of a Sir Walter Moyle and was trained as a bricklayer and grew up happily reading and speaking Latin in obscurity in Eastwell in Kent.
__________________
*I am not a smurf*
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-23-2010, 03:13 PM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
Richard ,Duke of York, would have been 12 at the time of Bosworth. I don't think it would have been likely that Richard III would have risked his safety, but I am not familiar with Baldwins book or this theory.
I find it sad that the things Richard is remembered for are alledged crimes rather than the good things he did such as legal reforms ,the providing of funds for some of the building of St Georges chapel Windsor and Kings College chapel Cambridge ( yes it wasn't just the Tudors ). He also founded the College of arms and was a patron of William Caxton . According to Jeremy Potter in his book "Good King Richard ?" the music at the court of Richard was the best in Europe.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-02-2010, 06:55 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: nashville, United States
Posts: 14
the war of the roses has always been one of my favorite time periods and i believe richard was innocent. there is a long mock trial on youtube about richard iii and the princes. it starts out assuming richard is guilty but he is eventually found innocent. richard loved his brother edward and his nephews so this would be totally out of character for him to murder them. the duke of buckingham or henry vii are the most likely to have done it, imo. richard fully intended to be regent for his nephew--per his brother's wishes but elizabeth had to interfere, forcing him into the actions he took. imo, elizabeth was a main player in the war of the roses. margaret wasn't exactly innocent either--i wonder if this war would have even happened if these 2 women were not involved??..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-02-2010, 10:34 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
I agree. Henry VII had the most to gain by murdering the princes
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-06-2010, 12:39 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
I agree. Henry VII had the most to gain by murdering the princes
I don't agree,then why Richard sent to Tower his nephews and proclaimed them illegitimate?Well did Shakespeare his description of Richard
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-06-2010, 05:44 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
I don't agree,then why Richard sent to Tower his nephews and proclaimed them illegitimate?Well did Shakespeare his description of Richard
Richard was very loyal to his brother and supported him but also wanted to protect the nephews who were declared illegitimate by act of Parliament in the Titulus Regius. However, Henry VII repudiated that doctrine, again through Parliament, thereby making the young princes legitimate again. but this would threaten Henry's claim to the throne, which was essentially based on his conquest of Richard III. The existence of the young princes was a threat to Henry's claim to the throne. So it makes more sense to me that Henry or someone acting in his interests killed the princes than Richard III. Remember, Shakespeare's patron was Elizabeth I, the granddaughter of Henry VII
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-06-2010, 06:46 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
I don't agree,then why Richard sent to Tower his nephews and proclaimed them illegitimate?Well did Shakespeare his description of Richard

First of all going to the Tower was normal for a person about to be crowned King. That is where they left from to go to the Abbey. Today they leave from Buckingham Palace but in those days the procession left from the Tower, which was a royal residence at that time.

They were proclaimed illegitimate by Parliament for a number of reasons and not the least being that the Parliament and the people had just had years and years of war - 100 against France and then 30 more of civil war and the idea of a minor King terrified many people. They believed that a strong, well-respected and liked adult King could prevent that from happening (they were right in the end as Henry VII certainly was the strong adult King who ended the fighting). To do that they needed an excuse to remove Edward IV's children from the throne and hence Titulus Regulus - the law that declared them illegitimate due to Edward's previous betrothal (remember that in those days a betrothal had the same force as a wedding so until the betrothal was ended Edward wasn't free to marry and he did marry in secret - raising suspicious that he may very well have been legally betrothed and thus the children were illegitimate).

Henry, even after Bosworth, had a lot more to fear from the boys as repealed Titulus Regulus and destroyed almost all copies but one or two survived. This would mean that the boys, and their sister, had better claims to the throne the he did. That he came to love Elizabeth I have no doubts but that wedding was a marriage of convenience to bring together the two warring factions - and again that would all be threatened if the boys were still alive and could come back to haunt him.

Shakespeare is a fiction writer writing in the time of Henry VII's grand-daughter. Had he said that Richard was innocent he would have been putting his own life in danger. He had to put forth Tudor propaganda.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-07-2010, 01:53 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Well said, Iluvbertie. I agree that Henry VII had a better motive to slay the young princes and probably was complicit in their deaths.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]