Your article on Richard the Third is excellent, Cheri.  During the course of my research (within my Marie Stuart discussion Group) into historical events, Richard has been discussed many times. In particular, debate raged as to whether he suffered Porphyria - a condition it is thought (no definitive evidence - as with much of early history) - afflicted Marie S.

There was a similar occurrance which went something like this..."Builders, when renovating a part of Edinburgh Castle in the 19th (?my memory fails me) century discovered in a wall the remains of a child/ren thought to be those issued by Marie Stuart, and fathered by James Hepburn, 4th. earl of Bothwell..." This was considered false by many, and of course there were no means to precisely identify the remains.

Regards, Harry

Cheryl. I tend to agree with you as an genealogist I'm picking up "papers"of people that say pretty much the thing, I saw an Discovery or History Channel report one time that also says that, but the papers seem to indicate that if the"Lawson" prior were the Planagent family that I have two young boys here that came through the colonies with the help of an an "Olgaby" or "Oglathrope" family connection. The latter was one of the people concerning the "colony" of North Carolina also. I'll be looking at this as I go along though. Thing of it is, Richard if he was all that "cruel" would have had no qualms in simply killing these young boys out-right, considering the era this was in. If he had the power, whom would really stop him?...most likely no one. I know that I have much data with people surrounding the Lawson's that over here in the early colonial period say they were sent here and banished in England as "pretenders" to the crown but I honestly don't think it's that all of them might be incorrect. I am not sure if the records over there would be truthful, as most people involved would indeed cover their tracks in the truth, in something as important as this would be. At anyway, what's been done has been done. It would take me sitting down and talking with someone that knows an LOT about English history, written and not written in some ways.

Sorry..Cheri....I have no idea why I thought your name was "Cheryl" ...please forgive me.

I went back an re-read your article and it mentions Eleanor Butler, so that must be how they got Edward Larkin m. to an "Butler" it isn't on his chartwork here in the states...and I see only an possibilty of "billet" for Butler perhaps. I will have to tell you what I know someday, as people seemingly follow me around to see what they can pick up off me at times over here. Some like to change it faster that I can write it some days too!...laughs* 

Hi Shirley;

I'm so sorry that I haven't responded to your post.  I've had family visiting for the last two weeks and it's going to continue as my daughter is arriving today from S. Calif. to visit her brother who just returned from Thailand.  He's turning 40 next week so we're having a big celebration.  (Yikes!!, how can I possibly have 2 children in their 40's)  Mike has decided to return to Thailand to live and teach so this will be the last time we'll see him for a while.

I truly don't know much about the genealogy beyond the royal family so I can't help you with the Lawsons or their connection.  Sounds like you're doing just fine though.  Regarding Eleanor Butler, my information shows that Edward IV was "just" betrothed to her.  As far as I know, there was no union and no children, but I'm not a genealogist.  I'm quite sure you know much more about it than I do.

I know that there are many who disagree with me concerning Richard but feel that if we take all that we know (timelines, who was where at what time etc.) and consider all of the others involved in the disappearance of the boys, I still vote for Stafford.  It's just such a shame that Richard has been seen as such a villain.

If there is any way that I can help with your research, let me know.  You can contact me at uktours4u@volcano.net or give me a call at (209) 296-0957.

All the best..........Cheri

Try reading Josephine Tey's  "The Daughter of Time".  Perfectly clear there that Richard III didn't murder the Princes - they weren't in his line of succession.  They were in Henry VII line and its pretty obvious that even if he didn't do it - he was responsible.  He besmirched the name of Richard III, and Shakespeare gave us the picture of him as 'hunchback'

( he wasn't !) to make sure he was siding with Henry VII.