Royal Burials


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't know about other skeletons but I do wish sometimes that the mystery of the possible bones of Edward V and his younger brother Richard, held in Westminster Abbey could be investigated. There have been so many advances in forensic science since the 1930's when the bones were last examined. It would be extremely interesting.
 
I don't know about other skeletons but I do wish sometimes that the mystery of the possible bones of Edward V and his younger brother Richard, held in Westminster Abbey could be investigated. There have been so many advances in forensic science since the 1930's when the bones were last examined. It would be extremely interesting.
Well, according to the reports of how and where those bones were found, the chances that they are those of Edward IV's sons are virtually nil. The bones were found ten feet under the foundations of a great stone staircase that dated from two centuries before the boys' births. It took several days to dismantle that staircase and dig out those foundations in 1674. How could anyone have dug under it in 1483 and buried the bodies of two children without someone noticing? Several hundred people were in and out of the Tower every day, and more than 100 lived there full-time. Someone would have said something, especially after Bosworth: "Oi, there was a bloody great 'ole dug right there gov - they tore apart that stair over there - took 'em days - and then put it back. Strange thing that, eh?" That didn't happen.

Those bones are far more likely to be from the Roman cemetery currently being excavated near the Tower that extends into the bounds of the Tower precincts. When discovered they were tossed into the garbage pit and only later dug back out when someone remembered Shakespeare's play. Charles II had Christopher Wren make that beautiful urn and placed the bones in the Abbey. When examined in 1933 the doctors, none of whom were anthropologists or archaeologists used to examining ancient bones, assumed they were genuine before they even saw them and their report didn't contradict that. Some of the bones in the urn weren't even human!

Modern scientists who have examined the poor-quality black and white photographs of the bones have reported that you can't tell the sex of prepubescent bones with any degree of accuracy, and the dimensions of the bones as given would appear to be too young for Edward and Richard. IIRC there were no teeth in what was left of the skulls so no good source of DNA. The only thing that could be even remotely tested with current technology would be carbon dating to show how old the bones are and even then there has been so much contamination the results might be a little iffy unless they show the age to be in the thousands of years rather than hundreds. The Queen will never allow the examination, the Abbey doesn't want one (their main point was what to do with the bones if the aren't the "princes") and I don't think either Charles or William really cares one way or the other. My own personal opinion? The bones are those of Roman children.
 
The bones were reputedly found with shreds of 'rag and velvet about them', a material unknown to Roman Britain, or any other part of the Empire for that matter.

Modern scientists would be very remiss if they pronounced conclusively on any bones by just looking at black and white photographs.

I think it is extremely insulting to infer that Dr Lawrence Tanner, an eminent physician, archivist and official at the Abbey and Professor W. Wright, a dental surgeon, who was President of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain, didn't know what they were talking about with regard to these incomplete skeletons, the probable age of the dead children, their height, or the dental evidence, especially the chronic bone disease in the elder child's jaw.

However, if we are going to argue that looking at black and white photographs (as well as examining the 1934 report) is acceptable, in 1955 Richard III's revisionist biographer enlisted the assistance of four experts: three Americans, one British, Dr W. Krogman, Professor of Physical Anthropology in the Graduate School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, and Professor B Kraus of the Dept of Anthropology University of Arizona, among them.

Professor Myers, the eminent medieval historian, canvassed the opinion of Professor Harrison, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Liverpool. In 1978 Elizabeth Jenkins, author of 'The Princes in the Tower', obtained an opinion from F M Lind, BDS London, LDS, RCs England.

In 1981 the late Prof Charles Ross, author of the seminal biography of Richard III, sought the opinions of Dr Juliet Jones, a specialist in the study of ancient bones, Dr Musgrove, an anatomist, and Prof. E Bradford, a professor of dental surgery. Dr Jean Ross, senior lecturer in anatomy at Charing Cross Hospital Medical School gave her opinion, in 1984, during a TV programme.

The findings of these experts were in all cases consistent with the bones being those of the Princes in the Tower. Although some questioned the findings of Tanner and Wright they did not discredit them; indeed, their conclusions substantiated them.

The dental evidence showed the age of the elder child was at least eleven years and at the most thirteen. The age of the younger child was placed at between seven and eleven and a half years. That is consistent with the Princes ages around September 1483, when they likely died, at a time when Richard was in full control of the Tower and its officials.

That part of the Tower was a private royal staircase leading to a Chapel used by the King for his own devotions. Who knows with such a tyrant as Richard what parts of buildings were cut off from officials and others who worked at the Tower at that time.
Yes, the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey, who are in charge, are reluctant to disturb any remains, and are not willing to submit the bones again to further tests. That is understandable, but in my view, regrettable. It may change when Charles comes to the throne.
 
William the Conqueror's daughter, Adela de Blois is claimed to be buried in Holy Trinity church at the abbey her mother, Queen Mathilde, built along with her sister, the abbess Cecelia. The tour guides for the abbey say Adela is not there. Would you or anyone know where she is supposed to have been buried in the church or crypt? I'm guessing the government tour guides are just not aware of her burial site there?
 
Its quite possible that her remains and tomb were destroyed,the Abbey of Sainte-Trinité in Caen (l'abbaye aux Dames) was sacked by rampaging Huguenots in 1562 and sadly again in 1793 during the French Revolution.Both times Matilda's tomb and others were smashed,her bones were salvaged and reburied.

I've also read that Adela was buried at the Cluniac Abbey in Marcigny where she retired?

Cecilia of Normandy was Abbess of Sainte-Trinité in Caen and died there in 1126 and buried 'within the abbey walls',it has never been discovered.

C%C3%A9cile_de_Normandie.jpg
 
Last edited:
That is what I am afraid might have happened. There are claims that her remains were put with those of her sisters, which were enclosed in the wall of the crypt. There are some claims that she was buried at the convent in Marcigny where she retired but sadly, that convent was destroyed in the Revolution as well. The "necropsy of Chartres" lists her burial as in Caen under the inscription "Adela, Filia Regis" (Adela, daughter of the king) and I'm tempted to think it wouldn't be recorded incorrectly there. It would be amazing to find this inscription somewhere within the church in Caen, but her whereabouts, sadly, may remain unknown. Thank you so much for the information!
Laura
 
I'll see what I can find later for you Laura.
 
Edward Duke of Kent was the father of Queen Victoria. After he died, in Devon in January 1820, he was buried in St George's Chapel, Windsor.

His widow Victoria, the Queen's mother, survived him by forty one years and she too was buried in St George's Chapel. However, she had wanted to be buried in her brother Ernst's mausoleum in Coburg. He had died in 1844.

She was told that her remains must remain in England, so, in compensation, her nephew Albert, the Prince Consort, designed and had built a mausoleum very like the Duke of Coburg'sat Frogmore. It is on a rise, beside a lake. Both she and her husband were re-interred and placed there after Albert's death.
 
Burials sites of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders and children

William the Conqueror was buried at the Abbaye-aux-Hommes in Caen,his tomb was destroyed by the Huguenots in 1562 and his remains scattered,the monks did salvage a thigh bone which was reburied.His burial was again disturbed in 1793 during the French Revolution but restored with a new tomb slab in the 1800's.

180px-StEtienne_Tombo_GuillaumeLeC.JPG


Matilda of Flanders buried at the at l'Abbaye aux Dames in Caen.

320px-Tombeau_de_la_reine_Mathilde.jpg


Robert Curthose,Duke of Normandy buried at Gloucester Cathedral.

320px-Robert_Curthrose_tomb%2C_Gloucester_Cathedral.jpg


Richard of Normandy died 1075 and buried at Winchester Cathedral.

William II of England died 1100 and buried at Winchester Cathedral.

Henry I of England died 1135 and buried at the Cluniac Reading Abbey,tomb lost and abbey in ruins.

Constance of Normandy,Duchess of Brittany died 1090 and was buried at the Church of St. Melaine, in St Melans, Rennes in Brittany.

Adela of Normandy,Countess of Blois, Chartres, and Meaux died 1137 and buried at a Convent in Marcigny-sur-Loire, France or at the Abbey of Holy Trinity, Caen, Normandy.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the mausoleum of Victoria mother and father at Frogmore and also her own one where she and Albert are buried I read somewhere it is in despite need of repairs and that there is no family to fix it up and that you cant visit it any more why would the Royal family not keep up on repairs it isn't like they are broke
 
The story goes that she and Phillip are to be buried in St George chapel just not sure how they will design the tomb
 
The story goes that she and Phillip are to be buried in St George chapel just not sure how they will design the tomb
It has been suggested/reported that they will join King George VI, Queen Elizabeth, and Princess Margaret in the George VI Chapel. There is still room for four more coffins in the vault.
 
Last edited:
King Stephen,his wife Matilda of Boulogne and their son Eustace IV, Count of Boulogne were all buried at the Cluniac Faversham Abbey in Kent,their tombs were lost following the dissolution of Faversham Abbey in 1538.During an excavation of the site in 1964 the location of their burials was discovered but no remains were found,their were reports that the bones of Stephen,Matilda and Eustance were simply dumped in the nearby river following the dissolution of the abbey.
 
It has been suggested/reported that they will join King George VI, Queen Elizabeth, and Princess Margaret in the George VI Chapel. There is still room for four more coffins in the vault.

Elizabeth II and Philip will most likely be buried with her parents and sister in George VI Memorial Chapel. I can't imagine that Elizabeth would want to be buried somewhere else.

However i am not sure that Charles (III) and Camilla will take up the 2 remaining spaces. I think he may want to start a new tradition somewhere with Camilla and with William (V), Harry and their families.
 
Last edited:
They would have more room if they switched to cremation like Margaret did. But some religions are not in favor of cremation.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Elizabeth II and Philip will most likely be buried with her parents and sister in George VI Memorial Chapel. I can't imagine that Elizabeth would want to be buried somewhere else.

However i am not sure that Charles (III) and Camilla will take up the 2 remaining spaces. I think he may want to start a new tradition somewhere with Camilla and with William (V), Harry and their families.

I think Charles would want to be buries next to his grandmother.
 
I think Charles would want to be buries next to his grandmother.

That's possible as that they were extremly close.
But it's also possible that he wants to be close to his sons and if there are no space for them unless they want to be creamted, they need to find a new arrangement, in St George's Chapel or somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
There is no room for further vaults in St George's.

I imagine Charles being buried in open air at Frogmore. In a biodegradable coffin.

Environmentally friendly
 
He would be in good company. The last ones were Alexandra's husband Angus and Princess Alice before him.
 
Back
Top Bottom