Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: navymom1

There’s no evidence that they were the bones of very small children — one of the problems uncovered when they were examined by forensics guys (1930s?) was that they were remains of individuals too old to have been the princes if they’d died during the reign of Richard III. Also, there was no scientific dating. Also, the find spot wasn’t all nice and neat, and other partial remains were ignored. It’s not unlikely that they were from a burial ground, and could well have been much older remains, perhaps Dark Ages, perhaps Roman, perhaps pre-Roman.


43 posted on 03/22/2016 5:21:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: SunkenCiv

The problem also is if the bones in the urn were identified as the princes, it still doesn’t tell us who had them killed - or if they were indeed killed. We do know from the 1930s examination that the bones didn’t show anything unusual except disease of the jaw in one of them.


47 posted on 03/22/2016 5:38:16 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: With my own people alone I should like to drive away the Turks (Muslims))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv

Thanks for the info. Truly am engrossed by this era of history. Also spend a lot of time reading about Custer at The Little Big Horn.


57 posted on 03/22/2016 6:33:27 PM PDT by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson