Cold Case Reopened: The Princes in the Tower Read Online Free PDF Page A
Author: Mark Garber
the arrest of his siblings and uncle really have caused this effect? Once they were out of sight, Gloucester could easily have spun a story as to what had occurred and why they were no longer present. Perhaps Rivers had been coaching his charge that Gloucester was not to be trusted and that even he may have wanted the throne for himself. Or maybe something else happened after Gloucester's interception of the king that we have no knowledge of. Otherwise, why would Edward not believe that he was heading to the Tower of London to reside there before his coronation?
CHAPTER FIVE
The discovery of the "bodies"
The discovery of the “bodies”
In 1674, during the reign of Charles II, two skeletons were found buried in a chest deep under the stairs to the Norman chapel of St John the Evangelist in the White Tower. This was a private staircase that was meant for the almost exclusive use of the monarch to reach the chapel from the royal apartments. The White Tower was undergoing refurbishment work after the works started by Oliver Cromwell were left unfinished after the restoration of the monarchy. It should be made clear that the discovery was made during the course of these works. This was not an effort to locate the resting place of the Princes.
The contemporary reports of the day, made by eyewitnesses to the discovery, state that everyone immediately assumed the skeletons to be the bodies of the missing princes. These reports also tell us some interesting and important pieces of information.
1. The larger of the two skeletons was on his back with the smaller one face down on top of it.
2. There were fragments of clothing still on the bones. These appeared to be of a fine cloth, probably velvet.
3. Some of those present took some of the smaller bones as souvenirs.
The bones then remained in the Tower for four years.
Under Charles II's orders these bones were placed in an urn, which was, in turn, interred in Westminster Abbey. They were publicly and officially declared to be the bones of the missing princes. This declaration was mainly based on the writings of Sir Thomas More, who based his conclusions on the “confessions” of Sir James Tyrell. (We shall move on to More's work and James Tyrell later on.) In short, More described the burial place of the princes as “at the stair foot, meetly deep under ground, under a great heap of stones.” This simple description matches where these bones were found.
The bones were examined in 1933 by William Wright, a professor of anatomy, and Lawrence Tanner, an historian. In the years since their report, “Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower”, was published in Archaelogia in 1935, there has been considerable debate regarding the scientific findings of this report. There has been a stream of doctors, professors and historians queuing up to either support Wright and Tanners findings or to debunk them.
The principle findings were these:
1.The two skeletons were incomplete. In addition to the human bones there were animal bones present as well.
2.The larger of the two skeletons was 4 foot 10 inches and the shorter 4 foot 6 and a half inches. It is suggested that the children would have been slender in nature.
3.The dental evidence suggests that the larger skeleton was between twelve and thirteen years of age and that the younger skeleton was between nine to eleven years of age.
4.The sex of the skeletons could not be determined.
5.The elder/larger of the skeletons showed evidence of bone disease in the lower jaw.
6.There were traces of blood on the elder skull, suggesting death by suffocation.
7.There was no way to age them to a particular time period.
If we consider each of those points in turn in relation to the Princes:
1.The incomplete skeletons back up what the eyewitness reports have stated regarding the removal of small bones as mementoes by those present. Clearly animal bones had been dropped into the
CHAPTER FIVE
The discovery of the "bodies"
The discovery of the “bodies”
In 1674, during the reign of Charles II, two skeletons were found buried in a chest deep under the stairs to the Norman chapel of St John the Evangelist in the White Tower. This was a private staircase that was meant for the almost exclusive use of the monarch to reach the chapel from the royal apartments. The White Tower was undergoing refurbishment work after the works started by Oliver Cromwell were left unfinished after the restoration of the monarchy. It should be made clear that the discovery was made during the course of these works. This was not an effort to locate the resting place of the Princes.
The contemporary reports of the day, made by eyewitnesses to the discovery, state that everyone immediately assumed the skeletons to be the bodies of the missing princes. These reports also tell us some interesting and important pieces of information.
1. The larger of the two skeletons was on his back with the smaller one face down on top of it.
2. There were fragments of clothing still on the bones. These appeared to be of a fine cloth, probably velvet.
3. Some of those present took some of the smaller bones as souvenirs.
The bones then remained in the Tower for four years.
Under Charles II's orders these bones were placed in an urn, which was, in turn, interred in Westminster Abbey. They were publicly and officially declared to be the bones of the missing princes. This declaration was mainly based on the writings of Sir Thomas More, who based his conclusions on the “confessions” of Sir James Tyrell. (We shall move on to More's work and James Tyrell later on.) In short, More described the burial place of the princes as “at the stair foot, meetly deep under ground, under a great heap of stones.” This simple description matches where these bones were found.
The bones were examined in 1933 by William Wright, a professor of anatomy, and Lawrence Tanner, an historian. In the years since their report, “Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower”, was published in Archaelogia in 1935, there has been considerable debate regarding the scientific findings of this report. There has been a stream of doctors, professors and historians queuing up to either support Wright and Tanners findings or to debunk them.
The principle findings were these:
1.The two skeletons were incomplete. In addition to the human bones there were animal bones present as well.
2.The larger of the two skeletons was 4 foot 10 inches and the shorter 4 foot 6 and a half inches. It is suggested that the children would have been slender in nature.
3.The dental evidence suggests that the larger skeleton was between twelve and thirteen years of age and that the younger skeleton was between nine to eleven years of age.
4.The sex of the skeletons could not be determined.
5.The elder/larger of the skeletons showed evidence of bone disease in the lower jaw.
6.There were traces of blood on the elder skull, suggesting death by suffocation.
7.There was no way to age them to a particular time period.
If we consider each of those points in turn in relation to the Princes:
1.The incomplete skeletons back up what the eyewitness reports have stated regarding the removal of small bones as mementoes by those present. Clearly animal bones had been dropped into the
Similar Books
Chasing Icarus
Gavin Mortimer
The End of Everything (New Yiddish Library Series)
David Bergelson
The Tiger Rising
Kate DiCamillo
Point of Impact
Stephen Hunter
A Hopeful Heart
Kim Vogel Sawyer
The Scribe
Elizabeth Hunter
Unbreakable Hearts (Broken Series #3)
Amanda Bennett
beats per minute
Alex Mae
GEN13 - Version 2.0
Unknown Author
Deep
Kylie Scott