Nonetheless, Shakespeare of course picked up on the idea that Richard was born feet forward. Nonetheless, a parallel tale that Richard was weak as a child seemed to reinforce the idea. It derives solely from a poem in the Clare Roll listing all of the children in Richard’s family.The relevant passage runs: John after William next born was, Which both be passed to God’s grace; George was next, and after Thomas Born was, which soon after did pace By the path of death into the heavenly place; Richard liveth yet; but the last of all Was Ursula, to him who God list call.The urn containing the 'bones' in Westminster Abbey Another major deficiency in 1933 was the lack of a reliable method for establishing a family relationship between the two bodies.
This would at least enable us to know whether we were talking about late medieval bones or Roman bones, for example.It is likely that in the future even more accurate dating will be possible.This story is well known from Shakespeare's play The The Bones from the Tower The Tower of London© Geoffrey Wheeler This story is often said to have been confirmed by the discovery of the bones of two children within the foundations of a staircase in the Tower of London in 1674.In 1678 some bones, said to be the same ones, were interred in an urn in Westminster Abbey as the bones of the princes by order of Charles II.To take just one example, modern forensic techniques show that the ages arrived at for the two skeletons are highly disputable and they may both be younger than they would be if they were the princes.
Furthermore, the age gap between the two children appears to be less than the three years that separate the births of Edward and Richard, the two princes.According to Rous, Richard remained in the womb for two years, emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders. It is for truth reported that the duchess his mother had so much ado in her travail, that she could not be delivered of him uncut: and that he came into the world with the feet forward … Credit: The British Library In the middle ages it was not permitted to cut a child from their mother’s womb unless the mother was already dead because Caesarian section was expected to be fatal.It is not wholly impossible that the ‘cut’ actually referred to an episiotomy but there is scant evidence for this practice in the middle ages.This also seemed to reinforce the earlier stories of a difficult birth.However, Cecily mentioned meeting Margaret earlier in 1453. It is unlikely that sickness that developed between the spring and summer of 1453 could be attributed to a birth the previous October.With the advance of knowledge and with new techniques available, the conclusions of the 1933 examination are now disputed.