Richard III & the Car Park

[Cogidubnus]

No one knows who Cornwallis was.

General Cornwallis (of Madras fame) or Admiral Cornwallis? I'm assuming the former...(heh heh)..

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Rivkah - I assume the Cornwallis you refer to was the general who lost to Washington and Lafayette at Yorktown. Technically, I think it was French victory as they temporarily cut off supplies to the British garrison.

Having just read Gore vidal's superb novel "Lincoln" (about the president of that name) I have been reflecting on American Presidents somwewhat. My next book with be Vidal's "Burr" about a relative and former (Vice?) president who shot another politician in a duel.

I'm looking forward to it because I know nothing at all about that period of American politics or history.

I regard myself as reasonably well-read in history, but some periods of US history defeat me - as I said to a friend the other day, if you showed me a photo of Chester Arthur I wouldn't recognise him or pick him out of a line up.

My list of US Presidents (to match your monarchs would be):

George Washington - war hero and father of his country, wooden teeth, married to Martha and wouldn't tell lies!
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson - slave owning hypocrite, author of the Declaration of Independence (or was it the Constitution?) who lived at the french court for some years.
Madison (had a wife called Dolly and fled when the British burned the Whitehouse)
Andrew Jackson (general, fought Creek indians and at New Orleans - "Old Hickory?
Buchanan - hopeless before secession
Lincoln
Andrew Johnson - impeached?
US Grant - corrupt administration
Chester Arthur
Garfield - assassinated
McKinley - not sure where he fits in (assassinated?)
Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson - WWI
Calvin Coolidge - "They bet me I wouldn't get more'n two words out of you Mr President" - "You lose!"
Warren? Harding
Hoover - dam fame
FDR - New Deal, WWII,
Truman
Eisenhower (my actual memory kicks in)
then: JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama.

It always interests me that Americans don't make more films about their own history. VERY few films seem to have been made about the Revolution. Civil War a bit better served. Excellent TV series on John Adams a few years back.

I am looking forward to seeing Spielberg's "Lincoln", with Daniel Day Lewis as the president, based on the excellent book "Team of Rivals" (Vidal's lincoln covers the same ground and in my view is even better.)

Phil H

[jason_c]

Oh. So, is the assumption that he has some sort of funeral before, and wasn't just dumped where he is? I suppose if the Abbey is there, of course there was, even though it may have been clandestine, but I guess he got his Catholic burial, and his last rites (they do those after you are dead if they don't make it to you alive, right?) It's my understanding you only need all that once, and that's the purpose, or theology, or whatever, or it being a sacrament. You don't have to keep getting rebaptized, re-ordained, or remarried to the same person. Once takes care of it for all time. A re-interment, even in a new place (as opposed to reburial in the same place after a forensic exhumation), isn't the same thing as a funeral.

Still, the UK can expect some tourists. I don't know how many people from the US would go to England just for this, but I think that a lot of people in the next year or two who were going anyway, will try to see the new grave. And Americans going to France or Italy, flying through Heathrow might make a stopover to see it. For Americans who know enough to want to travel to Europe in the first place, Richard III is a British monarch they've heard of, because of Shakespeare's play, and because of Tey's novel, and because of several movies that used to come on late-night that most people old enough to remember before the cable explosion. Also, American girls have heard of it, because Americans girls still read Ballet Shoes, by Noel Streatfeild. It has never been out of print in the US, and about 7 years ago, Emma Watson (Harry Potter's Hermione) starred in a film version, so popularity of the book even picked up a little. (The women don't have to read this next part, it's just for the men, who haven't read Ballet Shoes.) There's a whole couple of chapters where two of the main characters are in a production of Shakespeare's Richard III-- Emma Watson's character plays the older prince (it's actually pretty common to have a older teenaged girl play the role these days, since she can work longer hours than a real 12-year-old boy, and won't have a sudden growth spurt a week after the play opens).

Seriously, if you ask Americans to name British monarchs, you get a list like this:

King Arthur
Something the Conquerer
John, that was the one with Robin Hood, right?
No Richard. But that wasn't the same Richard who killed his nephews.
Richard III. Killed his nephews.
Henry VI, the one who had 8 wives-- no, wait (sings: I'm Enery the 8th) yeah-- Henry VIII
Elizabeth, the >snicker< virgin
Ummm, Mary Queen of Scots? No, that's not right.
There was a Queen Anne
Umm, King Lear?
George III
Victoria
Albert
The one who was Elizabeth's father
Elizabeth.

If you think that's embarrassing, try asking an American to name a president from before they (the American, that is, not the president) were born. They know Kennedy, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman, if they have seen the TV show M*A*S*H. A few can name Jefferson, if they bother to look at their 5 cent pieces. Some people think Benjamin Franklin was a president.

Freaking vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin didn't know the difference between John Adams, and John Quincy Adams. Sheesh. John Adams is the one who looks like a Care Bear. John Quincy Adams looks like he ate puppies for a light snack. No one knows who Cornwallis was.

No offence but you are mistaken. It was Michelle Bachmann not Sarah Palin who had problems with John Quincy Adams.

[Errata]

Having just read Gore vidal's superb novel "Lincoln" (about the president of that name) I have been reflecting on American Presidents somwewhat. My next book with be Vidal's "Burr" about a relative and former (Vice?) president who shot another politician in a duel.

I'm looking forward to it because I know nothing at all about that period of American politics or history.

So you know, Vidal's books are not biographies, they are "Historical Fiction". There is a whole lot wrong in "Lincoln" historically speaking. Essentially Vidal took one quote by Douglas (I think) about Lincoln, and did a sort of exercise where he wrote Lincoln's story under the presumption that the Douglas quote was true. They are good reads, and good for examining choices made by those in power, but they aren't true in the strictest sense.

[RivkahChaya]

No offence but you are mistaken. It was Michelle Bachmann not Sarah Palin who had problems with John Quincy Adams.

See, I get those too confused. One is stupid, and one is crazy, but I forget which is which. I think Palin is the stupid one, and Bachmann is the crazy one, so when Bachmann says something, stupid, but not espacially crazy, I tend to think it was Palin. And vice-versa. Like, the homophobic grandchild. I know that was Bristol Palin's abstinance-baby, but I always think it's sounds like a Bachmann story.

FWIW, I can name all the monarchs, in order, from William the Conquerer to the present, and all the US presidents, in order, and mostly, I get the VPs right. Occasionally, I screw up with the presidents who had more than two. But I learned that on my own, not from our wonderful public school system, where an actual teacher told me that AD, as in "the year AD 1972," stood for "after death." My mother, my Jewish mother, who knows Latin, set me right on it.

I only know who Cornwallis is from a series of "schoolhouse rock" cartoons that aired on TV in the 1970s.

"At Yorktown the British could not retreat,
"Bottled up by Washington and the French Fleet,
"Cornwallis surrendered and finally we had won!"

As for why there aren't more movies-- there's very little in US history that isn't controversial, but the rightness of the revolutionary war is one thing that is. The public wouldn't accept a film where the Americans are anything but entirely righteous and heroic, and that makes for a flat, predictable plot.

It also explains why the wars that do get lots of movies are the US Civil War, and Vietnam.

[Phil H]

Interesting Rivkah - though as far as I am aware there is a revionist view of the American Revolution around today that argues that the coloinsts had little to grumble about, the anti-British hyesteria was whipped up by agitators with an axe to grind and that Jefferson, Franklin etc were in it for themselves.

Errata - I think I discovered the difference between biography and novels when I was about 12. Though I am an advocate of the serious historical novel as a vehicle for serious historical debate and supposiition. I have even tried my hand at it - around the family of Richard III strangely enough, given this thread.

As far as Lincoln is concerned, I have no political axe to grind, so the interpretation bothers me little. I realise that he will not be popular with all US citizens. Vidal though, brings him alive, with wit and credibility that that is no mean feat. I recognise that his portraits of Seward and Chase may not please everyone - he seems to HATE Chase, but it made me laugh out loud and kept me reading.

So far as Douglas is concerned, I was interested to note that he appears in only one short scene in "Lincoln" and says almost nothing.

I can go to Team of Rivals or some other historical study if I want dry fact. I also like Vidal's approach, his style and his insights into political process and reality. He was brought up in the washington elite and clearly understands the way that politics is done, in the most brutal and practical way - that illumination it shines through his other books in his "Empire" sequence.

Thanks though for the advice.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Interesting Rivkah - though as far as I am aware there is a revionist view of the American Revolution around today that argues that the coloinsts had little to grumble about, the anti-British hyesteria was whipped up by agitators with an axe to grind and that Jefferson, Franklin etc were in it for themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in it for themselves," but of course the people wanting independence the most had the most to gain, that is, landowners who paid the most tax.

Of course there was hysteria, in that common workers, who were much less affected by taxation were whipped into anti-monarchist feelings, and led to fight a war that would benefit the rich the most, but that's true with most wars.

No matter how much revisionism you write, you still can't get past the fact that ostensibly British citizens were not having their interests represented in parliament, and that the colonies were viewed as cash cows by the government, while the colonists, who at that point, were being born, living, and dying in the colonies, felt disenfranchised, and "unBritish." It wasn't like other colonial periods and places, where colonists spent a few years there, and then returned to the motherland, or else were government employees, with guaranteed salaries. I'm not saying the British government did anything wrong, it simply failed to consider the American colonies as special, given their size and distance. Also, I think probably the problems with George III's reign acted as a distraction to off-shore problems, and the colonists, of course, had no idea that was going on.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "little to grumble about." What people wanted was self-governance, and they didn't have that. They wanted to keep goods in-shore, or set their own prices for exports, and not pay taxes on locally produced goods as though they were imports, because they technically belonged to the Crown.

Did the so-called founding fathers, and other landowners take advantage of "little people," in sending them off to do most of the actual fighting? Sure. Did it take a lot of propaganda to accomplish that? Sure. Does anyone think the US would be better off as part of the UK in the 21st century, or even as simply part of the commonwealth, like Canada? No.

[Cogidubnus]

According to a BBC website I just visited, "in 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers"...not so much a cash cow as a suckling calf perhaps...

Britain was hugely indebted following the Seven Years War and the purpose of extending the Stamp Act to the colonies was ostensibly to provide a contribution to the expense of the protection afforded by the British army and the Royal Navy...and even that was quietly dropped in the end, following representations by the wealthier landowners...

So much for no taxation without representation...they were doing all right...

All the best

Dave

PS if this thread goes any further off-topic we'll all be banned when the Ryders get back from York!

[Phil H]

No matter how much revisionism you write, you still can't get past the fact that ostensibly British citizens were not having their interests represented in parliament, and that the colonies were viewed as cash cows by the government, while the colonists, who at that point, were being born, living, and dying in the colonies, felt disenfranchised, and "unBritish."

An odd comment, given that the colonists had as much, if not more representation than did the majority of the British population Most British people did not begin to get the vote until 1832 (the Great Reform Act). So I think we need to look to other causes, Rvkah.

Was it not reasonable for the "Americans" to pay some of the costs of the war against the french (Quebec was only taken in 1759) and the garrison that protected them?

I see, too late, that Dave has made much the same points, so much more eloquently than I.

Phil H

[Errata]

Errata - I think I discovered the difference between biography and novels when I was about 12. Though I am an advocate of the serious historical novel as a vehicle for serious historical debate and supposiition. I have even tried my hand at it - around the family of Richard III strangely enough, given this thread.


Phil H

That wasn't some sort of assumption that you couldn't tell the difference. It's that Gore Vidal was such a nutjob about these things. Lincoln was published as a biography. And Vidal said it was both a biography and not a biography. A fictionalized biography... I don't even really know what it is. The names dates and places are true, the motives and drives are made up. To this day you usually find it in non-fiction, and it often says non fiction on the book. And I can't say that is false, but I certainly cannot say it is true either. And to the best of my knowledge Vidal is the only author we have this problem with. He's like the schroedinger's cat of literature.

[Phil H]

That wasn't some sort of assumption that you couldn't tell the difference. It's that Gore Vidal was such a nutjob about these things. Lincoln was published as a biography. And Vidal said it was both a biography and not a biography. A fictionalized biography... I don't even really know what it is. The names dates and places are true, the motives and drives are made up. To this day you usually find it in non-fiction, and it often says non fiction on the book. .... And to the best of my knowledge Vidal is the only author we have this problem with.

I have NEVER seen Vidal's "Lincoln" published or promoted as non-fiction. It has always been a novel as his afterword makes clear. He DID write a short biography (non-fiction) about the president, which I looked at at the time and remember considering insightful, punchy and good. Maybe you have the two confused. "Lincoln" is marketed, at least in the UK, as part of his broader Empire series with a similar cover etc. It is always found under fiction (where our bookshops hold Vidal!).

I think you are hard on Vidal. He was a wit, unashamed of his sexuality, an iconoclast and a pusher at boundaries. But isn't that what all great artists do? And YES I certainly regard Vidal as one of the great literary figures of the C20th.

We should move any further discussion to another thread if you want to debate Gore Vidal. But I think I can make this post relevant if I refer my points about historical fiction to Richard III.

I have been working for years on a novel which would set Richard in the context of his times and his family. Indeed, it would probably have to be at least a trilogy. My aim - exactly as Vidal with Lincoln - would be to be faithful to events, records, historical fact, but to illuminate the events by going into the minds of the characters to examine possible motivations. That is where the novel has an advantage over history factual "textbooks" - it can explore the what ifs, the areas the record doesn't touch, the unseen but circumstantial, always seeking to be consistent and thorough, sound.

I think Vidal does that in his "Lincoln" very well, as does Hilary Mantell in her more recent books about Thomas Cromwell ("Wolf Hall" was the first).

What is wrong with fictionalised biography, especially for a figure, like Richard III (as an example) where so much is unknown or controversial. It is no more than a new school in art - Impressionism or cubism for instance - which offends those who want to adhere to the rigid rules of some previous school or style.

On TV it is happening all the time, The Tudors, Rome, The Borgias are recent examples.

But I am pushing the boundaries of relevance now.

Phil H

[Steve S]

Interesting Rivkah - though as far as I am aware there is a revionist view of the American Revolution around today that argues that the coloinsts had little to grumble about, the anti-British hyesteria was whipped up by agitators with an axe to grind and that Jefferson, Franklin etc were in it for themselves.

Phil H

As a Brit who re-enacts Lexington militia...We tell the public it's the last English Civil War............

[Errata]

I have NEVER seen Vidal's "Lincoln" published or promoted as non-fiction. It has always been a novel as his afterword makes clear. He DID write a short biography (non-fiction) about the president, which I looked at at the time and remember considering insightful, punchy and good. Maybe you have the two confused. "Lincoln" is marketed, at least in the UK, as part of his broader Empire series with a similar cover etc. It is always found under fiction (where our bookshops hold Vidal!).

I think you are hard on Vidal. He was a wit, unashamed of his sexuality, an iconoclast and a pusher at boundaries. But isn't that what all great artists do? And YES I certainly regard Vidal as one of the great literary figures of the C20th.

We should move any further discussion to another thread if you want to debate Gore Vidal. But I think I can make this post relevant if I refer my points about historical fiction to Richard III.

I have been working for years on a novel which would set Richard in the context of his times and his family. Indeed, it would probably have to be at least a trilogy. My aim - exactly as Vidal with Lincoln - would be to be faithful to events, records, historical fact, but to illuminate the events by going into the minds of the characters to examine possible motivations. That is where the novel has an advantage over history factual "textbooks" - it can explore the what ifs, the areas the record doesn't touch, the unseen but circumstantial, always seeking to be consistent and thorough, sound.

I think Vidal does that in his "Lincoln" very well, as does Hilary Mantell in her more recent books about Thomas Cromwell ("Wolf Hall" was the first).

What is wrong with fictionalised biography, especially for a figure, like Richard III (as an example) where so much is unknown or controversial. It is no more than a new school in art - Impressionism or cubism for instance - which offends those who want to adhere to the rigid rules of some previous school or style.

On TV it is happening all the time, The Tudors, Rome, The Borgias are recent examples.

But I am pushing the boundaries of relevance now.

Phil H

And now I'm sad, because I holding my copy of Lincoln and it says "non-fiction" on the spine, and I picked it up in the biography section of the bookstore when I got a biography on John Wilkes Booth called American Brutus. And it's not the biography Vidal wrote, because that was next to this, and I didn't want it. I thought it was a universal issue, but clearly it's just the total lack of literacy in my particular corner of the globe.

I love Gore Vidal, mostly. I have some issues with some of his politics, but really who doesn't? And I have no problem with historical fiction, as long as it is clearly labeled as such. Which evidently Lincoln is, just not here.

We have a real problem here in the States of textbooks being wrong. And by wrong I mean clearly someone just made crap up. My Junior year history book said that we won the Bay of Pigs invasion, which is just incorrect on so many levels. It also said a fleet of bombers were dispatched over Hiroshima and none of them knew who actually had the atomic bomb, which is just farcical. No one ever gets taught the truth of the American Revolution, Nixon was not in fact impeached, Columbus never met a Native American... our History books outright lie to us. Those of us who read history on the side have figured this out, and have become pretty stringent of the difference between fact and not. Which is still a problem here, but evidently not there. Mea Culpa.

As for Richard, my only issue with historical fiction regarding him is that because we know so little, essentially the author has to make a choice on the outset. Was he a good man, or was he a bad man? Ambitious, or dutiful? Now, either one could have killed the Princes in the Tower so that's not really the deciding point. But it colors everything else. Was his objection to George's execution full throated, or just a token? Was he planning on marrying his niece? Was his support of Edward for the sole purpose of gaining favor and power? Was he planning the usurpation from the start? What really happened to Edward? All of these questions are unanswered. But to illuminate Richard, they have to be answered, and all of that starts with one initial presumption of character that we have no evidence for one way or the other. Consequently, the author could end up being really wrong on just about all counts. And that's fine, but one of the great parts of Daughter of Time is that the presumption of innocence is made at the outset. It's even in the synopsis on the back of my copy. But many others approach historical assumptions as though they were fact, leading a lot of readers to the conclusion that it is fact. So on the whole, I'd prefer the assumptions to be laid out in the forward of the book or something.

And I just noticed, my copy of Daughter of Time is also labeled non fiction, thought I know for a fact I got it out of the Mystery section. What on earth is wrong with people?

[Phil H]

I can only speak for UK shops and practices, I'm afraid.

"Daughter of Time" is a good novel, by a good writer who wrote other good dectective fiction (check out her other Alan Grant novels) but it is out of date for all that. Nevertheless, it is fiction and always has been, no matter how influential.

There has been no mis-selling of Vidal here in the UK. Maybe as with audiences for The Tudors, etc, people are less conversent with what constitutes history and what does not.

On Richard III:

As for Richard, my only issue with historical fiction regarding him is that because we know so little,

We atually know quite a lot, we have books he owned, prayers he used, a pretty good account of his career and war record...

essentially the author has to make a choice on the outset. Was he a good man, or was he a bad man?

Do we have to make such "simplistic" moral judgements. Can a man not be "good" or well-intentioned, even if he does things we might abhor. Take Churchill was he a good man or a bad. Or was he human, a misture of both and is not perception key here.

Ambitious, or dutiful? Now, either one could have killed the Princes in the Tower so that's not really the deciding point.

First prove they were killed! Your question is akin to - "are you still beating your wife?". It assumes.

But it colors everything else. Was his objection to George's execution full throated, or just a token?

Did Richard have any role to play at all in his brother's LEGAL execution? Parliament passed the Act after a trial before his peers and then had to press Edward IV to carry out the execution. Clarence was notoriously unstable, had revolted in the 1460s/early 70s. Mancini (no lover of Richard) says that as a result Richard hated the Wydevilles thereafter.

Was he planning on marrying his niece?

Almost certainly not! We know of other contenders: the Infanta Joanna of Portugal (the one favoured); and the Infanta Isabella of Spain.

Was his support of Edward for the sole purpose of gaining favor and power?

from the age of 18, Richard was consistently loyal to his kingly brother (unlike Clarence) and shared his exile with him. He was given a palatinate (practically an independent kingdom or satrapy) in the north which would seem to illustrate edward's trust. The only instance of division I can think of is that Richhard disapproved on the treaty of Piquency in 1475, when Edward and others were handsomely rewarded.

Was he planning the usurpation from the start?

Who can tell - but his actions up until the departure from York suggest utterloyalty, as does his treatment of prince edward/Edward V.

What really happened to Edward? Do you mean Edward IV? If so there are recent accusations that the Wydeville's poisoned him!

If Edward V - if you don't know how can you even suggest murder?

All of these questions are unanswered.

No, they are NOT.

But to illuminate Richard, they have to be answered, and all of that starts with one initial presumption of character that we have no evidence for one way or the other.

We have ample evidence, IMHO. We have his whole career from 1471-1483 - fully documented. We have the views of the City of York. We have his record as king - legislative and moral. We have his treatment of those who opposed him - Hastings, Rivers, Grey, Vaughn, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham, the Wydevilles - Elizabeth and her daughters.

but one of the great parts of Daughter of Time is that the presumption of innocence is made at the outset. It's even in the synopsis on the back of my copy.

I LOVE the book and enjoy re-reading it, but it is entertainment. I no longer recommend it except as an introduction to the subject. Tey based her views on a book by Sir Clements markham (which I have) written before WWI. Markham was a distinguished geographer not an historian and his views go too far in the opposite direction. He simply accuses Henry VII of all that he wishes to absolve RIII. Thatn is not tenable. there are plenty of excellent up-to-date biographies worth reading.

But many others approach historical assumptions as though they were fact, leading a lot of readers to the conclusion that it is fact.

That could be a comment on Casebook!! Each of us has to make our own judgement.

My own position is clear - I don't know whether Richard killed his nephews, I rather think not. But as a C15th prince he would certainly have been capable of ruthless action if required.

Good post Errata,

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Was he planning the usurpation from the start?

Wow. When you ask it that way, you don't allow that it was a perfectly legal assumption of the throne by the person who was next in line, once the princes were found to be illegitimate. (Yes, I know that Phil is not the one who said that-- he was quote someone else, but I've lost track.)

All of these questions are unanswered.

No, they are NOT.

My own position is clear - I don't know whether Richard killed his nephews, I rather think not. But as a C15th prince he would certainly have been capable of ruthless action if required.

I realize that no one is going to disinter the bones buried as the princes, but I really, really wish we could check the DNA, and not only that, do some imaging of them.

If this skeleton does prove, through mDNA, to be Richard, there's an opportunity to possibly match the Y-chromosome to the skeletons, and that would be the best proof we could have that they are the princes. I don't know that Elizabeth Woodville has an unbroken female line into the present. Henry VII had daughters, but I have no idea what happened to them.

At any rate, here's something more important: the older boy was on the cusp of puberty, and we have a lot of imaging techniques, as well as knowledge about skeletal development, not available the last time the skeletons were examined.

If the boys died at the beginning of Richard's reign, they were 12 & 1/2, and almost exactly 10. If they died shortly after Bosworth, they were 14 & 1/2 and 12. The skeletons will look really different, depending on when they died.

I've never heard anyone who believes that Richard killed them suggest he did so after his coronation, particularly long after, and it isn't possible that Henry orchestrated a hit from exile, while Richard was king-- or at any rate, next to impossible-- and somehow Richard was oblivious, and didn't realize the princes were missing.

It also stretches credulity, I think, to suppose that someone killed them during Richard's reign, without Richard's knowledge, and without Richard even realizing it after the fact. If Richard decided for some reason to become complicit after the fact, I think the cover-up still would have involved displaying the bodies and burying them with a public service.

Now, here's what I'm really getting at: why the boys needed to disappear, as opposed to being smothered, them someone saying "Oh, they had a fever, it happens."

Here's one hypothesis that I don't think it too off the wall: they disappeared, because it was the only way to blame it on Richard. Henry couldn't produce two fresh bodies a full two years older than they had been when Richard was supposed to have killed them. He needed them dead, so he could legitimize their sister, and make Richard a usurper (even though Henry apparently thought it was just fine to kill the previous king and declare yourself the new king), but he needed them dead in 1483, aged 12 & 1/2 and 10.

Now, maybe they really did die under Richard. Maybe they died very violently, and that's why the bodies couldn't be displayed-- although you still have to wonder what Richard, who didn't know he would die in two years, planned to do in 1493, when someone asked where they were.

Still, a lot of questions would be answered by looking at those skeletons. If they aren't the boys, then the bodies are still in the wind-- for all we know, they survived to adulthood in exile somewhere. If they are the boys, then knowing how old they were at death can tell us a lot.