Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

The account I read Errata - in Carson's the Maligned King (see a previous post) says that the bones were found in 1674. They were then thrown onto a rubbish heap where they remained until someone thought they might be significant - the labourers were then sent back to retrieve them.

So the extraneous animal bones don't come from the inmterment, but from the rubbish heap into which the bones were thrown and where they remained for a time.

Interestingly, the bones were found at a depth of 10 feet, in the foundations of a forebuilding to the White Tower - the central keep of the Tower. That seems an odd place for a supposedly "secret" burial. Digging into the foundations would surely take time, make noise and produce rubble and attract attention. More likely the remains dated from when the forebuilding was constructed (1350s or after?), or pre-dated it being much older. Given the nature of the ground on which the Tower is built, foundations trenches are deep and wide.

Hope that helps and maybe clarifies.

Phil H

[Errata]

The account I read Errata - in Carson's the Maligned King (see a previous post) says that the bones were found in 1674. They were then thrown onto a rubbish heap where they remained until someone thought they might be significant - the labourers were then sent back to retrieve them.

So the extraneous animal bones don't come from the inmterment, but from the rubbish heap into which the bones were thrown and where they remained for a time.

Interestingly, the bones were found at a depth of 10 feet, in the foundations of a forebuilding to the White Tower - the central keep of the Tower. That seems an odd place for a supposedly "secret" burial. Digging into the foundations would surely take time, make noise and produce rubble and attract attention. More likely the remains dated from when the forebuilding was constructed (1350s or after?), or pre-dated it being much older. Given the nature of the ground on which the Tower is built, foundations trenches are deep and wide.

Hope that helps and maybe clarifies.

Phil H

Well, here's the thing. I had the worlds most peculiar project in a sociology class on waste disposal. And London was one of the cities in the project. At the time the bones were found, the law said that household waste had to be kept indoors until such a time as the rakers came to collect it, much like it is today. By law, rakers came around twice a week. So if we assume that the Tower of London functions on that schedule, there are some problems.

If they pitched the bones onto an outside waste site, that was a construction waste site, and there's no reason for trash to be there. If they pitched the bones inside on the household waste dump, They didn't stay there for more than a couple of days, or they would have gone out with the trash. And there is very noticeable difference between old human bones, and recently gnawed on chicken bones, so I'm not quite sure why that would make it into the pile. And I cannot for the life of me imagine what the hell an ape bone was doing in someone's kitchen trash can.

And here's something else. I have no idea what the Tower was doing in 1647. It was in Parliament's hands, the England Civil War was on, The Royal household was elsewhere, I don't think it was prison. Why pick then to do construction, on who was there generating kitchen waste to get mingle with the human remains?

[Phil H]

The Tower was a dynamic sort of place, Errata.

Before the Tudors, and for much of the early part of the Tudors, it was a royal residence as well as a fortress dominating and protecting London. It was really only under the Tudors that it began to become thought of as a prison rather than a palace. I think it was there that Elizabeth of York gave birth to her last child and died. (An odd place to have a confinement if it bore sad memories to assassinated brothers!)

When the princes were sent there it would have been as a safe residence, NOT a prison - what is now known as the Bloody Tower was then called the Garden Tower. Originally, the royal apartments had been in the central White Tower (of which more anon) but later kings had added new apartments and Henry VIII had refurbished the palace element for Anne Boleyn - it was there she was held during her trial and pending her execution.

Coronation processions traditionally went from the Tower to Westminster on the day before the ceremony, until the time of Charles II.

The reason for this background is that in 1674 (after the Civil War) the whole Tower was undergoing some refurbishment. A number of outbuildings around the White Tower were being demolished including what was known as the "forebuilding". This had replaced an earlier wooden EXTERIOR staircase. It was while taking down this medieval structure that the remains werre found deep under a staircase. I think there was some general clearing up of a muddled and decaying area of the Inner Ward of the Tower complex. At some stage the Coldharbour gate, nearby was demolished too.

The rubbish heap could, I suppose, have related to the building work as much as to domestic rubbish. In any case, in Stuart London, I should not place too much reliance on the "law" - even if applied in the City of London, the Tower was (and is) a royal palace and would have been exempt.

By way of illustration, when the great Duke of Wellington, as Constable of the Tower, had the moat drained in the 1840s, it was because it had become a stagnant rubbish heap dangerous to health. That was nearer modern times!! Incidentally, this draining revealed even more bones!!!

I remain confused and am seeking to unravel the point, but I think the 1647 date is a bit spurious - it is that date when the earlier discovery of human remains (in 1604-14ish) was recorded, NOT (I think) when it occured.

Phil H

[Rubyretro]

came across this.. http://youtu.be/R6JczvS1PL4

[Archaic]

I think there's a good chance that the bones found in the 1600's really were the two murdered princes.

I recall reading one explanation for the fact that some animal bones were mixed in with the human bones: various people had pilfered some of the bones as "souvenirs" or "relics", and substituted animal bones in an effort to (at least temporarily) hide their theft.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil H]

I think there's a good chance that the bones found in the 1600's really were the two murdered princes.

Which set? And you first have to show the "boys" died in the Tower.

The multiplicity of sets of remains make assigning any particular set to anyone, difficult. I find it interesting that the most recent discovery of remains dates to the iron age - much more likely, IMHO. When the remains of the (now subterranean) Walbrook stream were excavated some years ago, many iron age skulls and bones were found, relating either to a celtic sacred site or Boudicca's burning of Neronian Londinium. The area that became thE Tower might be equally littered.

I have no axe to grind - if a set of bones could be found and the deaths assigned to 1487 (on age and rough dating), I'd be quite happy!!!

BUT, the place where the 1674 remains were found - deep in the foundations of a staircase is hardly an obvious spot for a "secret burial".

If anything the 1603-14 set, found in a sealed room sound more plausible, but no one paid them much attention at the time.

I recall reading one explanation for the fact that some animal bones were mixed in with the human bones: various people had pilfered some of the bones as "souvenirs" or "relics", and substituted animal bones in an effort to (at least temporarily) hide their theft.

See my previous post about the remains being discarded on a rubbish heap for at least several days.


Phil H

[Errata]

A sealed room? Let's assume for a moment that Richard did do away with the kids. Tyrrel takes the keys, smothers them with a pillow, puts them in a room and bricks them in (which makes even less sense than burying them, but let's say he made a weekend out of it.) Henry VII shows up, kids aren't there, and he demands an explanation. Everyone says truthfully that they don't know what happened to them. But nobody says "But now that I think about it, about the time they disappeared we came on duty to find a closet bricked over."? Or they do tell him and he doesn't retrieve the bodies for instant credibility?

Even if he didn't seal them in a room immediately after the murders, he didn't have a whole lot of time to make that happen. Now making new rooms is very understandable, but you have to have a damn good reason to seal up a room. And I can't think of a single one that doesn't involve hiding a body. Maybe Cask of Amontillado ruined my thinking on this, but I can't think of a single unsuspicious reason to seal off a perfectly good room/closet. Yeah. Still can't.

[Phil H]

There does seem to have been a "fashion" for sealed/secret rooms around the 1480s.

Francis, Lord lovell (sometimes depicted as RIII's "best friend") is alleged to have died in a "secret room" at his home at Minster Lovell. He had fled there after the Battle of Stoke and died there, presumably because for some reason his servents ceased to provide him with food. A skeleton was found in the C18th.

Make of it what you will.

Minster Lovell is a wonderful ruined manor house - very lovely and evocative. RIII stayed there.

On the sealed room in the Tower I simply gave you the options.

Phil H

[Errata]

There does seem to have been a "fashion" for sealed/secret rooms around the 1480s.

Francis, Lord lovell (sometimes depicted as RIII's "best friend") is alleged to have died in a "secret room" at his home at Minster Lovell. He had fled there after the Battle of Stoke and died there, presumably because for some reason his servents ceased to provide him with food. A skeleton was found in the C18th.

Make of it what you will.

Minster Lovell is a wonderful ruined manor house - very lovely and evocative. RIII stayed there.

On the sealed room in the Tower I simply gave you the options.

Phil H

Oh that outrage/disbelief wasn't directed at you. Just, how many times have you sealed a room? Or how many people do you know who have done it? It's an odd thing to do. It strains credulity that either no one noticed that it had been done, no one thought it odd. Which means they knew, and said nothing. Not ever. Which is both unbelievable, and awful.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

How?

All the best
Jukka

[Archaic]

re: The Princes in the Tower

I think there's a good chance that the bones found in the 1600's really were the two murdered princes.

Which set? And you first have to show the "boys" died in the Tower.

The multiplicity of sets of remains make assigning any particular set to anyone, difficult. I find it interesting that the most recent discovery of remains dates to the iron age - much more likely, IMHO. When the remains of the (now subterranean) Walbrook stream were excavated some years ago, many iron age skulls and bones were found, relating either to a celtic sacred site or Boudicca's burning of Neronian Londinium. The area that became thE Tower might be equally littered.

I have no axe to grind - if a set of bones could be found and the deaths assigned to 1487 (on age and rough dating), I'd be quite happy!!!

BUT, the place where the 1674 remains were found - deep in the foundations of a staircase is hardly an obvious spot for a "secret burial".

If anything the 1603-14 set, found in a sealed room sound more plausible, but no one paid them much attention at the time.

I recall reading one explanation for the fact that some animal bones were mixed in with the human bones: various people had pilfered some of the bones as "souvenirs" or "relics", and substituted animal bones in an effort to (at least temporarily) hide their theft.

See my previous post about the remains being discarded on a rubbish heap for at least several days.

Hi Phil. Sorry, I was talking about the pair of skeletons found in 1674. And I think I do believe Thomas More's version of events. I certainly find it compelling. He may not have been 100% right in every detail, but the skeletons of two boys were found right where he indicated.

I disagree that it's "first necessary to show the boys died in the Tower". We know they were imprisoned there, we know they were seen there, and we know they disappeared from sight having last been seen there. That's significant. Of course I hope that someday other historical evidence will turn up that will tell us a great deal more about the facts of their deaths, but there are unlikely to be 520 year old documents pertaining to the murder of helpless children. Not the kind of thing one writes down. Whoever ordered such a murder would have compelling reasons to distance himself from it. I guess we can always hope someone in the know kept a diary.

- Do you have more information on the other "sets" of bones you mentioned? Do you mean that multiple sets of children's bones were found in the Tower? Can you give me a source, etc? I don't think that was mentioned in any of the books & articles I've read. Thanks.

I checked my source concerning the presence of animal bones with the two human skeletons. It's 'The Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London' by Nigel Jones. On page 151 Jones says the bones were put in a stone coffin close to where they were found. He mentions a "rubbish heap nearby", but says it was a "builder's rubbish heap"- in other words, ordinary building debris, broken stone, wooden beams, etc, rather than some kind of kitchen dump full of food waste and leftover animal bones. I think there's a big difference.
The human skeletons weren't just loose and dumped out on a heap of food rubbish. I don't know how long the stone coffin was left there before the authorities removed it, do you? I expect it was a short time. And I really can't see someone coming along, lifting a heavy stone coffin lid, and throwing the chicken bones left over from his lunch into the coffin. Why would they?

I can only quote a little bit of the Tower history book mentioned above due to Casebook rules. On pg 152 the author writes:
During this period, souvenir hunters made off with some of them, including tiny finger bones. Other bones made their way, via the collector Elias Ashmole, to his Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, whence they subsequently disappeared. To camouflage these thefts, animal bones were apparently added to the skeletons."

It makes perfect sense to me that over time various people pilfered bits of bone as souvenirs or even holy relics; I wouldn't even be surprised if patrons of the Ashmolean received them as gifts! Then at some point- perhaps when it was decided to bury the skeletons in the Abbey- there was a bit of a panic as it was realized how many bones were missing. So those who had been responsible for the skeletons tried to make up the deficiency with whatever bones could be gathered quickly. It seems very naive to us today that they did so with animal bones, but in the 1600's who could tell the difference?
Obviously people living in the 1600's weren't worrying about the results of a forensic examination 400 years later!

I sincerely wish the bones in the Abbey could be submitted for genetic testing. I understand that they're interred in consecrated ground, and that the story of two murdered children isn't the best PR in the world for the institution of monarchy, but the fate of the two princes is certainly one of the greatest mysteries in English history. Just imagine the information a team of forensic professionals could produce from those bones!

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil H]

I disagree that it's "first necessary to show the boys died in the Tower".

Each to, his own then. To me the wider context indicates that there is GREAT uncertainty under henry VII as to the fate of the boys. Murderr is only one of several realsitic options.

We know they were imprisoned there, we know they were seen there, and we know they disappeared from sight having last been seen there. That's significant.

Why? You ignore the whole illogic of killing them - but if you insist on trusting More, why should I bother?

Whoever ordered such a murder would have compelling reasons to distance himself from it.

Not necessarily. Henry VI (1471) was put to death in the tower and yet put on publci display - precisely because dead and with uncertainty, pretenders/claiants could crop up. Same with Richard II (1400 ish) at Pontefract - body exposed.

No diaries please - this isn't JtR!!!

If any further information exists it will most likely lie within the dry detail of accounts and privy deal certifications etc.

Do you have more information on the other "sets" of bones you mentioned?

I'll see what I can find, but I have set out clearly what I have found to the present in earlier posts.

Do you mean that multiple sets of children's bones were found in the Tower?

Yes 1604-14ish (the sealed room) and 1674 (Abbey urn eventually) plus the 2ape".

Can you give me a source, etc?

I have clearlyuy and always set out my sources (all secondary) in earlier posts.

I don't think that was mentioned in any of the books & articles I've read. maybe you only read ones that believe the "sainted" Thomas was an historian. (I don't really mean that but couldn't resist. Sorry!)

It's 'The Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London' by Nigel Jones. On page 151 Jones says the bones were put in a stone coffin close to where they were found. He mentions a "rubbish heap nearby", but says it was a "builder's rubbish heap"- in other words, ordinary building debris, broken stone, wooden beams, etc, rather than some kind of kitchen dump full of food waste and leftover animal bones. I think there's a big difference.

If that's the new paperback - be careful. I found several errors and a profound bias. If you read it he's not a pro-Ricdrian. I was disappointed by the book.

I gave the account I have and believe is correct.

I sincerely wish the bones in the Abbey could be submitted for genetic testing.

I am pretty sure they won't be. The RIII Society has requested it twice in relatively recent years. The reasons have nothing to do with the "PR of monarch" in my view. It reflects modern views that remains remain undisturbed unless unavoidable. Why shoul Elizabeth II be remotely concerned about a Tudor myth that has circulated for 500 years? They seem unconcerned about revelations that the Tsar was left to his fate for instance

Just imagine the information a team of forensic professionals could produce from those bones!

Show they were Norman or iron age probably.

Phil H

[Monty]

Just walked past the dig site.

More diggers have moved in....something is afoot.

Monty

[Phil H]

something is afoot

But probably not Richard's as the feet were missing!!

[Phil H]

In looking for additional info on what might be going on, I found this on the RIII Society website:

Channel 4 to Broadcast "The Hunt for Richard III"

Channel 4 has confirmed that they have commissioned an independent film company to make a history programme about the search for the remains of Richard III beneath a Council car park in Leicester.

I can see no updates on the dig that might explain what is going on. Any information your contact can supply would be appreciated, Monty.

Phil H