And he dismissed the claims that anthropological or dental techniques could reliably reveal the ages of the victims, saying it would have to be accurate to within months or even weeks "if Richard III is to be let off the hook". "So far as the latter point is concerned – and it is this that fascinates and is the real interest – the other techniques would hardly do so either," said the Dean. He said Blake and Hall advised that carbon dating would throw no light on the cause of death, nor the identity of those who killed them. It would not bring us any nearer the truth of the affair." "Keep them in the urn in the royal chapels, knowing they are bogus, or re-bury them elsewhere? And what would we have gained, other than to satisfy our curiosity in one area. But what if they are negative: what do we do with the remains? If the result is positive, the remains of the two princes are placed back in Sir Christopher Wren's urn. "A sample of bone (skin/hair/tissue) from a known individual related to the princes would be required, and that almost certainly means opening a second tomb in the Abbey or elsewhere. But he pointed out that in itself could create further problems. In his response to the 1995 request he said he accepted that DNA and other techniques could now establish whether or not the bones in the Abbey were those of the princes, although he could not resist mentioning the fiasco of the Turin shroud in this context. Nor would the C/14 technique give any clue as to the age at death of the children," the dean said. "It could not therefore differentiate between Richard III or Henry VII – or another – being the guilty party. Richard III occupied the throne for two years between 14 before his death in the battle of Bosworth Field. The dean took advice from the historian Lord Blake and an Oxford archaeology professor, Edward Hall, who said carbon dating of a sample from the late 15th century would only establish the accuracy of the bones within plus or minus 50 years. A Home Office file shows the then dean of Westminster, the Very Rev Michael Mayne, strongly resisted both requests despite being "pressed very hard to agree" to allow the bones to be submitted to carbon dating, to match their deaths to Richard III's reign, and DNA testing to prove their identities.īuckingham Palace and then home secretary, Michael Howard, were consulted and both the Queen and the minister were in "full agreement" with the church authorities that matter should not be reopened. A concerted attempt to get the urn opened was made by the Richard III Society, the group behind this week's confirmation of Richard III's remains, together with the BBC in 1993 and again by Channel 4 in 1995. by the order of their perfidious uncle Richard the Usurper", as the 17th-century inscription puts it. Tudor and Stuart histories insist that the remains contained in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren are those of Edward V and Richard Duke of York who were "stifled with pillows. Authorities also resisted on the grounds the tests could not finally establish "if Richard III is to be let off the hook". The church was also uncertain what to do with the remains if the DNA tests were negative, potentially leaving the church with the dilemma of how to manage bogus bones. DNA testing was refused on the grounds that it could set a precedent for testing historical theories that would lead to multiple royal disinterments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |