Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FredZarguna

Oh, for goodness sake, I can’t believe you buy that bilge about More and the staircase. They weren’t scattered, by the way, they were found in a chest. These bones - which include animal bones - are actually thought - because of the depth of the earth - to be from the Roman period. The Queen won’t open the urn, so we may never know. We do know one of the children (they cannot determine whether it is a girl or a boy) has serious jaw disease - nothing like that was mentioned in any of the princes’ history.


53 posted on 09/17/2014 3:19:25 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: miss marmelstein
They weren’t scattered, by the way, they were found in a chest.

"Scattered" was a sarcastic reference to your post, which used the image, to which I replied. Do try to keep up; if not with me, at least with your own writing.

The rest of your reply is more nonsense. The bones were where More said they'd be. They were exhumed in 1674, at which time no dating of the remains on the basis of depth or any other science would have been even remotely possible. But we do know this: There is no historical record of any other children having been buried in the Tower. We also know the White Tower was built in 1078, six centuries after the fall of Rome.

Please learn some history; you're embarrassing yourself here.

they cannot determine whether it is a girl or a boy

Another Ricardian distraction, which is typical. It was not determined, because no attempt to determine such was ever made. That doesn't mean "they cannot determine" it. Does a contemporary document mention the burial of a young female and her brother in the Tower? Nope. No such claim has ever been made, except by Ricardians pretending that it was routine to bury people in places mentioned by Chancellors of England.

As for what was or was not mentioned in the children's history, degenerative bone loss is indeed consistent with murder by starvation, and that was one of several contemporaneous theories in circulation while Richard III was still alive.

But second, and far more importantly, you won't -- and can't, any more than your murderous hero could -- refute claims against Richard by the simplest means of all: If he didn't murder them, why didn't their traitorous uncle produce them alive?

59 posted on 09/17/2014 3:41:10 PM PDT by FredZarguna (His first name is 'Unarmed,' and his given middle name is 'Teenager.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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