X-ray evidence of skull from Norwich (possibly Talbot) with congenital missing tooth
Posted on 07/15/2018 2:52:59 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
The dental record reveals that Richard III had no congenitally missing teeth, in sharp contrast to the 'bones in the urn', where both skulls are said to present this genetic anomaly. Previously it has been argued that this feature provided strong evidence of the royal identity of the 'bones in the urn'. It was claimed that the 'Princes' inherited their missing teeth from their grandmother, Cecily, Duchess of York. But Dr Ashdown-Hill's latest discovery strongly suggests that the 'bones in the urn' are not related to Cecily's son, Richard III, who was a first degree relative of the 'Princes'.
Scientific studies of hypodontia (congenitally missing teeth) have further suggested that the anomaly is relatively rare, being present in less than 5% of the population, and is slightly more prevalent in the female population. This discovery adds further weight to the many questions now surrounding the identity of the 'bones in the urn', and raises the possibility that the remains may even be those of as yet unidentified females.
In 1674, the bones were discovered at the Tower of London by workmen digging ten feet below the stairs that led from the Royal Apartments to the White Tower. Four years later, they were reburied in the urn in Westminster Abbey by Charles II who had been persuaded to accept that the remains were the 'Princes in the Tower'... What caused the four-year delay in the reburial of the bones in Westminster during the reign of Charles II, where the bones were kept during this time, and if they are indeed the same bones that were discovered in 1674 by the workmen, is also not known.
(Excerpt) Read more at johnashdownhill.com ...
X-ray evidence of skull from Norwich (possibly Talbot) with congenital missing tooth
Sadly, Dr. Ashdown-Hill passed away just about a month ago of ALS. I have several of his books that he autographed for me (through a friend). A very brilliant, gentle soul who will be missed.
Thanks Miss M.
History is written by the victors. It could be that Richard was a victim of fake news.
“History is written by the victors. It could be that Richard was a victim of fake news.”
_______________________________
Certainly in this case that’s true. Back when I was an Anglophile Richard III was my favorite King. All that I have ever read about the man makes me doubt that he would have given the order to have his beloved brother’s children murdered.
Some of the history that we have of Richard was written by Sir Thomas More, but More could not have had this information first hand as he was a small child when Richard was murdered. More was probably fed the information by Cardinal Morton a proponent and ally of Henry the VII.
There is a group who have dedicated itself to establishing Richard’s innocence. It is called the Richard the Third Society. They have chapters here in America and a lovely website if one just wants to browse the collected evidence.
He was a good king. He upset the barons and other members of the nobility by overturning the order. Sort of like somebody else I’m thinking of...
Yes he was a good king who upset the establishment, LOL, something that needed doing then, much like today.
Richard made his home away from court during his brother’s reign which tells me he was sick of the palace intrigue (Woodvilles), and really didn’t want to be involved. If he was the ruthless, ambitious “politician” wouldn’t he have stayed at his brother’s side?
I believe he was a good and devout man who was caught up in circumstances. I doubt he wanted to be king but felt it was his duty and that brought him to London and away from his beloved Northern counties.
Obviously, you are very familiar with the story. Are you a member of the Society?
He hated Edward’s court. He especially disliked his annoying brother-in-law, Tony Woodville, who had control of the two nephews and who led the coup against him when he was Lord Protector.
Most of, if not all of, Shakespeare’s writing about the last Plantagenet was fiction.
Richard’s contemporaries wrote that he was a fierce warrior how could a man with a withered arm and a hump on his back be a “warrior?” So yes Shakespeare wrote to suck up to the granddaughter of the man who toppled Richard from his throne.
Yes, and isn’t it interesting that Richard was left Lord Protector and not one of the Woodvilles? Edward knew who he could trust.
I was never a member of the Society although at the time they did have a Long Island chapter. I was impressed with some of their work though. In 1985, the 500th anniversary of his death, the British chapter (Yorkshire, I think), had a re-enactment of the Battle and a formal funeral for Richard.
It reminds me of the line, “where do I go to get my reputation back?” Well, Richard. you have some very dedicated people working on your behalf. It says something about the man that he is still thought of 500+ years later.
In 500 years will anyone still be talking about the Windsors? I doubt it.
I’ve been a member of the NYC branch and the Yorkshire branch. I didn’t renew with the Yorkshire branch because I couldn’t get some of the important material that the main branch produced (go figure!) Now, I don’t belong to either one but am on many Ricardian pages on Facebook and even have one of my own.
Yes, Edward knew who he could trust. And it certainly wasn’t his wife’s awful family. His wife conspired to have George, the Duke of Clarence executed. Richard was extremely bitter about that.
Is there still a NYC chapter? I am pretty sure that the LI one closed.
I am sure when Richard looked at that whole Woodville cabal he was pretty disgusted but the traitor who I believe most broke his heart was William Lord Hastings what a sad ending.
I am on my way out so I do hope we can continue this conversation later? My memory is a little rusty, though, LOL.
Just last year I read a book by Josephine Tey called The Daughter of Time. It was a fascinating read, even to someone like me (barely literate in British history).
The historically accepted facts don’t hold up to common sense questioning.
Yes, I think there is one. I’m not fond of their new librarian, lol. A flaming liberal! Talk to you later.
The Daughter of Time was a great book and rather confirmed what I thought. When I was taught World History there was a portrait of Richard III in our text book. Even though my history teacher went on and on about the evil Richard I thought he looked more sad than evil.
But what really struck me was that Sir Thomas More’s History was never published during his lifetime and I wondered why? I believe that he knew what he had written was propaganda and false, and being an honorable man could not bring himself to have lies published in his name.
The entire Plantagenet Family history reads like a novel from the first one to Richard the last King of that name. Some were great and most not so great but always, always fascinating.
YES!
For those who follow this, John Ashdown-Hill’s last book, The Mythology of the Princes in the Tower, has just been released. It’s not cheap being an academic-style tome but it will be filled with good info and interesting tidbits.
Thank you for that, I will look into it. My interest is not nearly as intense as it was years ago, but I do have a soft spot for Richard III.
I wonder what he would think of the present Prince of Wales?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
