Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:20 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Claire said:
Although Alison Weir suggests that these bones may belong to Lady Rochford or Catherine Howard they could well be Anne's seeing as they lay where records showed that Anne was buried. We just don't know.
That's my point, exactly! We don't know! It doesn't really matter how many bodies were located around her, and, personally, I don't have the most confidence in 1870's forensic techniques. I'm certain they did the best they could do with the tools they had, but there is no way they could ever have said “This is Anne Boleyn” with 100% certainty short of her body being found with a plaque with her name on it. We'd have a hard time doing that now with our modern technology! Certainly, other evidence strongly suggests that this is Anne's body, but, I'm not 100% convinced and I probably never will be.
At the end of the day I don't really see that it matters who is buried where within the chapel. Almost every person buried there gave their life for crimes they never committed (almost), and even for the ones who were guilty the punishment certainly didn't fit the crime(s). We know who is buried in that chapel because pretty decent records were kept and I don't personally feel that any one person deserves our respect more than another. They should all be remembered for who they really were and what they accomplished in life and not whatever trumped-up charges lead to their deaths, and, in keeping with the spirit of the AB Files, I think that should be our goal for them all.
So while the idea of bringing up Anne's skeleton to perform analysis and perhaps do a facial reconstruction on it is an intriguing one, I think we are served equally well by drawing conclusions from portraits of her done during her lifetime–perhaps more so because we KNOW that the portraits of AB are Anne, but we will never really know if the skeleton attributed to Anne is truly hers. Ultimately, though, Anne's memory is best served by remembering her accomplishments and her remarkable place in history.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:20 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Claire said:
Although Alison Weir suggests that these bones may belong to Lady Rochford or Catherine Howard they could well be Anne's seeing as they lay where records showed that Anne was buried. We just don't know.
That's my point, exactly! We don't know! It doesn't really matter how many bodies were located around her, and, personally, I don't have the most confidence in 1870's forensic techniques. I'm certain they did the best they could do with the tools they had, but there is no way they could ever have said “This is Anne Boleyn” with 100% certainty short of her body being found with a plaque with her name on it. We'd have a hard time doing that now with our modern technology! Certainly, other evidence strongly suggests that this is Anne's body, but, I'm not 100% convinced and I probably never will be.
At the end of the day I don't really see that it matters who is buried where within the chapel. Almost every person buried there gave their life for crimes they never committed (almost), and even for the ones who were guilty the punishment certainly didn't fit the crime(s). We know who is buried in that chapel because pretty decent records were kept and I don't personally feel that any one person deserves our respect more than another. They should all be remembered for who they really were and what they accomplished in life and not whatever trumped-up charges lead to their deaths, and, in keeping with the spirit of the AB Files, I think that should be our goal for them all.
So while the idea of bringing up Anne's skeleton to perform analysis and perhaps do a facial reconstruction on it is an intriguing one, I think we are served equally well by drawing conclusions from portraits of her done during her lifetime–perhaps more so because we KNOW that the portraits of AB are Anne, but we will never really know if the skeleton attributed to Anne is truly hers. Ultimately, though, Anne's memory is best served by remembering her accomplishments and her remarkable place in history.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:22 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Why do my posts keep double and triple posting???? I swear I'm only hitting the submit button once!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
10:23 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
I think Anne and the rest of the people in the chapel should be left alone. I have never been to St Peter's, but people who have been speak of how peaceful it is there. That is good enough for me. As tempting as it is to want to have her body exhumed for modern testing, I do not think her resting place should be disturbed.
As to Weir's theory that it might be KH buried where Anne is supposed to be, Henry ordered lime thrown on Katherine Howard's bones. There would be nothing left to find.
4:18 pm
February 10, 2010
Offline
Hi Sharon
I've never heard the one about Henry ordering lime to be thrown on Katherine Howard's bones – can you let me have the source please?
Thanks.
5:35 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
I have heard both that he had lime thrown on her bones and also that he did NOT have lime thrown on her bones. Not sure what to believe in that case.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
9:16 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
I've heard Henry did/didn't too. Off the top of my head I think I read it Alison Weir's Six Wives, though I can't be sure. But it seems odd for only Katherine to suffer that indignity.
9:09 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
Anne fan said:
Hi Sharon
I've never heard the one about Henry ordering lime to be thrown on Katherine Howard's bones – can you let me have the source please?
Thanks.
Hi Anne Fan,
Well I have looked and looked and cannot find the article. We were talking about this on another posting, and I asked about the lime because I wasn't sure if I was correct. Claire answered many of the questions which were asked including mine. Now I know I have read it in an article here, but I cannot locate that either. I will continue to try to find it. Now it is bugging me. So sorry.
9:40 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
Sharon said:
Anne fan said:
Hi Sharon
I've never heard the one about Henry ordering lime to be thrown on Katherine Howard's bones – can you let me have the source please?
Thanks.
Hi Anne Fan,
Well I have looked and looked and cannot find the article. We were talking about this on another posting, and I asked about the lime because I wasn't sure if I was correct. Claire answered many of the questions which were asked including mine. Now I know I have read it in an article here, but I cannot locate that either. I will continue to try to find it. Now it is bugging me. So sorry.
Wait, I found this:
/the-marriage-of-henry-viii-and-catherine-howard/6065/
Skip on down to the end.
9:50 am
May 19, 2011
Offline
wreckmasterjay said:
Well its like the body of King Tutankhamun, although the archaeologists tried their best for the 1920s, it was the people who came after that disrespected his broken body. However, the information they have gathered over the last 10 years or so has been priceless in finding out who was who, their families, diseases, nourishment, injuries etc.
To think of Anne squashed up in a foetal postion in that box leads me to believe that, although I dont agree with digging up the dead, she should be exhumed and all the wrongs put right, even if it means she is put back where she came from under the chapel but in a more respectful way. to think how much information we could gather from examination of the skeletons! A few days of scanning would be all that would be requred wouldnt it?
I absolutely agree WMJ- what an excellent point! In my opinion she should be moved to Westminster Chapel with appropriate pomp and ceremony and a lovely tomb carved for her, depicting her at her most serene and dazzling.. and a little flirtatious. Although, it would have to be a skilled artist to fulfill the above requirements!
I'm sure she would be happy to provide us with a few scans in return for a proper burial fit for a “sainted Queen”.. Just a teensy scan…
"A fresh young damsel, who could trip and go"
10:24 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
Anne fan said:
Hi Sharon
I've never heard the one about Henry ordering lime to be thrown on Katherine Howard's bones – can you let me have the source please?
Thanks.
Hi Anne fan,
I listed a piece above that Claire had written, but I also found Doyne C Bell's book online.
http://books.google.com/books?…..38;f=false
If you go to the contents: The Restoration in 1876-7
The information on Catherine starts on page 27 under the title, Countess of Salisbury
It does not say that Henry ordered the lime, but it does say lime was used on Catherine. I didn't read it completely but the lime may have been used on Jane and Lady Salisbury as well. However, their bones were there and the Doctor was able to approximate their ages. They say that because Catherine was young and her bones were softer, they would have disintegrated faster than the other two women. Up above this page is what they found of Anne.
Still looking to find where I read Henry ordered the lime. I know I read it somewhere.
4:33 pm
February 10, 2010
Offline
Thank you for sending the links. It's a really interesting topic in a ghoulish sort of way. I can't quite see Henry specifically ordering lime because as a character he seems more concerned with how people died and not what happened afterwards. But I can see it being a standard procedure which young bones would be less likely to survive. The reason I say that is that I seem to remember reading somewhere that no bones that could be identified as Lady Jane Grey's were discovered either and she was 17 when she was executed. I can also see it being missed out in the case of Anne as no one had remembered to order a coffin for her, hence the arrow chest.
10:22 am
May 19, 2011
Offline
I visited St Peter Ad Vincula in September last year. I found it distressing and creepy. I believe that Anne's spirit has moved away from this area and that she is at peace whatever her burial. I think if her spirit had not moved away how could she possibly be at peace? Shoved into an arrow chest, then dug up and piled up on herself- that's one hell of a cramp! If we really were interested in her being at rest, shouldn't she be in a restful place, not a few feet away from the spot she met her very brave and violent end?
It's just a thought. I personally think Anne, wherever she is now, has far more important things to worry about than her old bones anyway…
"A fresh young damsel, who could trip and go"
11:08 am
May 19, 2011
Offline
Here I am again- after writing this and exploring some of the topics I hadn't read, a thought occurred. Wouldn't it be nice for Anne to be taken home, and buried at Hever?
"A fresh young damsel, who could trip and go"
11:43 am
July 17, 2011
Offline
I don't understand this talk of young bones not surviving – I recently watched a documentary where skeletons were found dating to the 12th century and some of the skeletons were young children. I watch a lot of archaeological documentaries and have never heard anyone mention the fact that young bones may not survive. A skeleton can't just disintegrate can it? Can anyone clarify? Im quite intrigued by this.
'If honour were profitable, everybody would be honourable' Thomas More
7:40 am
February 10, 2010
Offline
Catalina said:
I don't understand this talk of young bones not surviving – I recently watched a documentary where skeletons were found dating to the 12th century and some of the skeletons were young children. I watch a lot of archaeological documentaries and have never heard anyone mention the fact that young bones may not survive. A skeleton can't just disintegrate can it? Can anyone clarify? Im quite intrigued by this.
Ah, I think I know which documentary you were watching 
I watched it too! I think they're saying the younger bones didn't survive because they had lime thrown on them which presumably would have a chemical reaction (and at this point I'm going because I'm no chemist!).
9:12 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
From my understanding, lime (or lye) is a corrosive and caustic substance that is used (even in the modern era) to speed up decomposition of human or animal remains. Since I am no chemist, I fail to understand the exact chemical process, but I imagine is helps dehydrate the body, which in turn, speeds up the process.(?)
I have minimal archaeological training, so this is going from memory. The person's age at death has nothing to do with whether their bones will survive (Is this what you mean by young bones?). There are other factors to take into consideration for bones to completely decay: burial preperation and storage of the bodies, soil deposits, weather, etc. Sometimes it is luck that bones survive. In fact, in the Andes mountains, mummys were discovered of young children. It was not intentional mummification by the Inca, but just a happenstance of envinronment. I guess it's all up to Mother Nature sometimes.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
9:23 am
April 11, 2011
Offline
Anne fan said:
Ah, I think I know which documentary you were watching
The most favoured use of lime for the disposal of bodies was Quicklime, when water is added to this it becomes Slaked lime and a further variation is Chlorinated lime. Oscar Wilde's The Ballard Of Reading Gaol gives a detailed description of the effect of Quicklime on the body of an executed soldier, which makes it sound as though nothing would remain. The reality is somewhat different however, as proven by Alfred Lucus, a forensic scientist who did a detailed study on the effects that all three types of lime would have on flesh and bone. His results showed that in some cases the lime could actually preserve the body and in others the degree of decay was variable and far from certain.
9:24 am
July 17, 2011
Offline
So on their own, bones arent likely to just disintegrate? I didn't realise that lime was thrown on KH bones, I understand now.
'If honour were profitable, everybody would be honourable' Thomas More
3:10 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Neil Kemp said:
Anne fan said:
Ah, I think I know which documentary you were watching
The most favoured use of lime for the disposal of bodies was Quicklime, when water is added to this it becomes Slaked lime and a further variation is Chlorinated lime. Oscar Wilde's The Ballard Of Reading Gaol gives a detailed description of the effect of Quicklime on the body of an executed soldier, which makes it sound as though nothing would remain. The reality is somewhat different however, as proven by Alfred Lucus, a forensic scientist who did a detailed study on the effects that all three types of lime would have on flesh and bone. His results showed that in some cases the lime could actually preserve the body and in others the degree of decay was variable and far from certain.
Ah, Neil, you beat me to it!!! Lime can certainly cause pretty nasty burns if exposed to bare skin (just google it), but the burns certainly aren't horrific or even something I would term disfiguring. I tend to believe that IF lime was thrown over any bodies, it was done to mask the odor of decomposition–not to permanently degrade the bodies. I still question if the lime would DO anything. I mean, the skin of the deceased would protect the bones of the deceased from the lime anyway. Assuming that no preservation occurred from the lime and the body continued to decay as usual, I just think that there couldn't possibly be enough calcium oxide, or calcium hydroxide, or chlorinated lime (whatever was used) remaining on the body to cause the complete destruction of bone by the time the bone was actually exposed to the lime. That's my major hangup.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
