More royal skeletons

+6 votes
236 views

The papers are regurgitating a press release about the discovery of Queen Emma as if it were new news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48281733

But it obviously can't be, because her bones are on display in a glass case in an exhibition.  Presumably it's the opening of the exhibition that's provoked the press release.

WikiTree profile: Emma of England
in The Tree House by RJ Horace G2G6 Pilot (451k points)
edited by RJ Horace
RJ, where did you dig this up, other than the URL of course

And that's explained in the article -- that whatever is IN the casket may not be who was named on the inscription because when the place was sacked the contents were scattered and the locals replaced this and that in whatever casket came to hand. So. Q. Emma is in there in the mix somewhere.
When i visited 50 yrs ago, during the excavation of  the Saxon cathedral, the chests were perched on top of the choir screen.  I recall the one pointed out to me as Emma's was red.  These burials would have originally been in the crypt of the Saxon cathedral, so obviously much traveled and handled, even without the vandalism.  Also recall reading that the Saxons had no "queens", that Emma was the Lady, the "Lady of England".

4 Answers

+5 votes
One thing that's puzzling me is that the caption on the display case mentions Etheldredus Rex, not Ethelredus.  (This is the Unready one)

Etheldred was generally a girl's name, which survives as Audrey.

Did the inscription really say that, or has there been a transcription error?
by RJ Horace G2G6 Pilot (451k points)
Somebody boo-bood.  Maybe you should contact the exhibition and point it out.  (I'm not joking.)
+7 votes
That'll keep me away from the Cathedral for a while. "Because we want to know" is not a good enough excuse to add further indignity to human remains.
by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Pilot (149k points)

I was watching an old Time Team episode yesterday, and they found the bones of a child.  When asked what he was going to do with them, Phil Harding said, "I'm going to give them the proper respect, and leave them alone."

Well done, Phil! yes

I have no objection to them analysing the remains and reassembling them for re 'burial'. I am not happy about displaying them in a case (feel just the same about Lindow man in the British Museum) Perhaps though  the bones on display in the picture are just facsimiles. Otherwise it seems very odd and certainly  contrary to the Churches insistence upon a reverent treatment and reburial of Richard IIIs bones (and this article written at the start of the investigation which claims that the investigation into the  remains in the chests would be carried out with a minimum  level of disturbance.http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/saxon_35.html

He's called Etheldred there as well, in a different inscription.  The chests might be Tudor, but there's a strange bit about earlier versions of the chests.

You're right, the bones aren't real, they're 3D printed.  So photocopies basically

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2019/may/winchester-cathedral-chests.html

Permanent exhibition.  Opens 21 May.

Ah, Helen, but IF the DNA is being sought, I'm reasonably certain they have a Respectful Procedure which is part of the training for most who work in the field handing corpses or bones or fragments thereof ... at any rate there's often a mention of the "respectful handling" but in the Quest for DNA and the Origins of Humankind and etc bones will be handled by living hands. 

I have gathered from reading articles that the personality of someone who delves into DNA research, archaeology, pathology, and related fields -- fields related to handling the deceased -- are not the sort of personality that flinches when confronted by Remains. 

I have often admired doctors and nurses and medical aids who are at least trained not to flinch. Pretty sure it is not my own personality type since I tend to be more worried about who or what caused the person to become Remains. 

The account of  the 'roundhead behaviour in the Cathedral was described by Bruno Ryves .The independent article quotes extensively from him.

(and prompted me to create a profile for him; I'm pm for his father and it's a task I've been meaning to do for ages .He's an interesting character ; a clergyman from a wealthy Dorset family, known for his writing of Royalist propaganda.)

I guess I never understood the reverence towards human bones. If you're an atheist, after you die, nothing happens, so you probably don't care what happens to your bones. If you're a believer, you're either in heaven or hell, and n either, you probably don't care what happens to your bones.

That could start up a HUGE doctrinal debate, emotions riding high etc, so... let's not. 

smiley

+2 votes

Emma's sons Hardicanute and Edward the Confessor died without issue.  But she also had a daughter, Goda, who married Drew, Count of Mantes, and they had Ralph the Timid, Earl of Hereford.

Their descendants aren't traced by Richardson, but it seems well established that they were ancestors of Sudeleys, Cliffords, la Warres and Grandisons.

Which means Emma has zillions of living descendants.

Colonial Gateways descended from Emma

Abell, Alsops, Argall, Asfordby, Aubrey, Barham, Batt, Battes, Baynton, Beckwith, Beresford, Bernards, Beville, Bladen, Blakistons, Bolles, Booth, Bosvile, Bourchier, Brents, Bressey, Bromfield, Bull, Butlers, C Calvert, Carleton, Chetwode, Clarke, Clarkson, Codd, Corbin, Crymes, Cudworth, Dade, Davie, Digges, Drake, Farrer, Fenwick, Filmer, Fisher, Fleete, Goddard, Gurdon, Harleston, Horsmanden, Humphrey (Mass), Jennings, Launce, Levis, Lightfoots, Lovelaces, Ludlows, Lunsford, Lynde, Mackworth, Mallorys, Mansfields, Marshall, Mauleverer, More, Needs, J&M Nelson, P&T Nelson, Newton, Owsley, Oxenbridge, Pelham, Peyton, Poles, Randolphs, Reade, Rodneys, Rudyard, St John, St Leger, Saltonstall, D Scott, Skepper, A Skipwith, D&G Skipwith, Somerset, Stockman, Stoughton, Stratton, Throckmorton, Torreys, Touteville, Welby, Wests, Wyatts and maybe more.

Royals descended from Emma are Edward IV and all later kings except Henry VII, but nobody earlier, that we know of.

WikiTree has more lines through an "Uncertain" daughter, Clarice la Warre.  Vis. Kent 1571 pt 1 p 39 makes Roger Savage's wife a daughter of "Lord Delaward".  The Bellewes article in The Genealogist adds more specifics, but not sources.  Does not mention Everingham.  Richardson has Everingham but does not identlfy his wife Clarice.  Any news or views on this lady?

by RJ Horace G2G6 Pilot (451k points)
edited by RJ Horace
+2 votes

Speaking of DNA and descendants, Emma's grandson Ralph, Earl of Hereford has a Y-DNA connection to a John R. Carpenter. However, there's no connection between the two. I've always been puzzled by this since there's no actual DNA connection!

The Carpenters have a very sketchy connection to Herve Melun, Ralph's first cousin through a very conveniently named ancestor William "The Carpentier" Melun

A G2G in January regarding William's descendant Maurice Le Carpentier.seems to have concluded this appears to be yet another fabricated pedigree.

by Kirk Hess G2G6 Mach 5 (51.8k points)
The Y-DNA trails will link cousins.  They go all the way back, and then all the way down all the side-branches.  One "uncertain" connection can propagate a Y flag to hundreds of profiles where it doesn't belong.

Related questions

+7 votes
5 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
+10 votes
0 answers
94 views asked Dec 3, 2018 in The Tree House by Lucy Selvaggio-Diaz G2G6 Pilot (300k points)
+3 votes
4 answers
+3 votes
0 answers
124 views asked Oct 18, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Mach 7 (71.4k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...