Is there a King under this Bridge?
8 October 2002 Article by Adam Wakelin in the Leicester Mercury

It is a mystery, an enigma - is the last king of England to die in battle really under a Leicester bridge? Popular legend has it that the body of Richard III is somewhere in the ink-black depths of the River Soar.

Half a century after his death in 1485 on the blood-sodden fields of Bosworth, the king's remains are said to have been ripped from his tomb in Greyfriars and hurled from the old Bow Bridge by a frenzied mob - never to be seen again?

At least three skulls have been pulled from the river and claimed to be the head of England's lost king, the only monarch to have perished on home soil whose remains lie unmarked by a gravestone.

But even these bones of contention raise more questions than they answer: One was taken from a city museum a century ago. Another is owned by a collector whose identity remains a secret.

Joe Goddard, of Newton Harcourt, has the third. The grisly family heirloom was found by Mr Goddard's great-great grandfather, Henry Goddard, a builder and architect, while working on a replacement Bow Bridge in the early 19th century.

"It isn't Richard III, I can tell you that", said Mr Goddard. "Tests at Oxford University three years ago revealed it was that of a ninth century Saxon. I was quite relieved, to be honest. My great-great grandfather donated another skull to Leicester Museum in the 1830s. That one was even more interesting as it had a gash across the cranium. Could that have been a sword wound?"

Modern medical and forensic science could, in theory, prove whether this or the third skull is Richard's. The problem is no one seems to know where they are.

Muddying the waters further is the fact that the Soar is likely to be teeming with skeletal remains, according to Peter Liddell.

The keeper of archaeology for Leicestershire Museums Service said it was common for skulls to be dropped into rivers in prehistoric times.

An Augustinian friary once stood close to Bow Bridge and the river, which may have changed course repeatedly during the past 500 years, is likely to have swallowed up corpses once buried in its grounds.

"There could have been quite a few which seeped out at the edges. You could have a mass watery grave down there", said Mr Liddell.

It would be possible to find out, said Ben Dempsey, a researcher for Channel 4 archaeology show, Time Team.

His experience is that bodies on riverbeds can be well preserved. Dredging the Soar is not impractical but, he said: "If Richard was chucked off the bridge, the likelihood is that has been carried miles downstream over the past half a millennium or so".

"He might not have. It all depends on just how forcefully he was put there. I would love to have a crack at it with Time Team, but the chances of finding anything conclusive are probably too slim for us to take it on."

Historian, David Baldwin has grave doubts whether Richard is even in the Soar. The University of Leicester expert argues it is far more likely his remains lie somewhere close to the former Nat West bank in Greyfriars Lane, the site of his original tomb.

Greyfriars monastery was sacked in 1538 as Henry VIII split from Rome but would our forefathers have really desecrated the tomb of a king? Mr Baldwin thinks not, believing the story to be propaganda spread by the Tudor dynasty which succeeded Richard.

"There is nothing to suggest that the people of Leicester had such animosity to their former ruler", he said. "Indeed, his successors were by no means universally popular."

The first record of the body being thrown into the Soar is from 70 years after it was supposed to have taken place. Christopher Wren, the father of the architect, seemed to have no knowledge of the matter in 1612 when he was working as a tutor for the family which had bought the ruined friary and built a large house and garden on the site.

Wren wrote that he was shown a 3 ft stone pillar in the garden - put up by the house's owner - which had the inscription: "Here lies Richard III, sometime king of England."

"It is my opinion that he is still there, somewhere under those well trodden streets towards St Martins", said Mr Baldwin. "We will never be certain, of course, unless we excavate the whole area. I don't think there is much prospect of finding him, but you never know. Stranger things have happened."


Michael K Jones' Controversial new book: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle

Published August 2002

In Dr Michael Jones' latest book, he puts forward a convincing argument for the relocation of the Battle of Bosworth and a contemporary justification for Richard's usurpation of the throne.

Dr Jones is convinced that there is evidence to prove the illegitimacy of Richard's brother, Edward IV, an illegitimacy that Richard would have been aware of. This, to him and his followers, gave him justification for putting aside the heirs of Edward and taking the throne himself, as the only surviving legitimate heir of Richard of York. Looking at the crucial timing of Edward's assumed conception, there is evidence to point to the duke of York being still on campaign in France and not with his wife at that time, leaving her free to dally with an attractive archer posted to protect her perhaps? Certainly Edward's christening was hardly the joyous affair expected for the first born son of noble parents. His was a hushed ceremony behind closed doors whereas their second son, Edmund, a year later had a splendid ceremony, with the honour of being baptised in the sacred font where Duke Rollo of Normandy had been converted to Christianity.

Dr Jones comments that, if Richard had such a cause to believe in then it could give us a very different Battle of Bosworth and he goes on to describe the battle as he believed it was fought, taking new evidence from a letter written by a French soldier of fortune who fought for Henry Tudor at Bosworth. The letter stated that..."the king rode forward at the start of the battle with his whole cavalry division, in a well planned and large scale assault on Henry's position", to quote Dr Jones. "This is an extraordinary shift. If using cavalry was part of Richard's battle plan, he would not have deployed his forces on a narrow hilltop like Ambion, with little room for manoeuvre.

"The very different terrain also makes sense of the account of Polydore Vergil, the Tudor court chronicler, whose descriptions of Henry using the August sun to dazzle Richard do not confirm to the Ambion Hill site."

Dr Jones argues that evidence exists to prove that the battlefield actually lay eight miles to the west of the traditional site, close to the small town of Atherstone in Warwickshire in terrain more suitable for the use of cavalry as described by the French soldier. The Crowland Chronicler also refers to the battle as "this battle of Merevale" after an abbey which was south-west of Atherstone.

A fascinating and controversial book. An essential read for all serious Ricardians.


War-torn Roses Reunited after 500 Years
10 June 2002 Article by Helen Studd in The Times

Three original blooms linked with the Wars of the Roses were restored to traditional horticultural harmony in London's Temple Gardens yesterday in what is believed to be the first planting of its kind in more than 500 years.

The white York rose, Alba maxima, the Lancastrian red, Gallical officinalis, and the hybrid adopted as an emblem of peace at the end of the wars, Gallical versicolor, were planted during London Garden Squares Day, an open day in which the public can visit gardens that are usually locked.

Planting the roses was an attempt to recreate a piece of English history.

The red and white varieties, which were famously plucked in the gardens by York and Lancastrian adversaries at the start of the wars in 1460, had not been grown together in the flowerbeds since. Although the Knights Templar gardens at Middle and Inner Temple have seen an abundance of showy hybrid roses, the original bushes had died out and were never replaced. Sixteen of each have not been planted among bright red geraniums in a border that runs alongside the Inns of Court.

Lesley Ball, the Temple gardener, said: "They may not be as attractive as some of the varieties today but it was essential to put them back.

"To the best of our knowledge all three varieties have not been planted together in this garden since the 15th century. Historians can only guess at the reasons why."

According to the myth adopted by Shakespeare in Henry VI, the plucking of red and white roses from the gardens led to the York and Lancastrian factions adopting emblems for the first time.

Tradition has it that the Duke of Somerset, whose headquarters were based at the Tower of London, plucked a red rose during a meeting in Temple Gardens around 1460, and said: "Let all the friends of Lancaster follow my example."

The Earl of Warwick, a friend of the Duke of York who returned from exile in Ireland and set up camp in Westminster, then plucked a white rose and challenged friends of York to do the same.

Elizabeth of York married Henry Tudor to cement the eventual peace and they adopted the Gallica versicolor or Rosa mundi on their accession to the Throne in 1485.

The Knights cultivated the rose, which they brought back from the Holy Land during the crusades, at their headquarters in Temple Gardens.

The youngest son of Eleanor of Provence, who became Earl of Lancaster, was the first to adopt it as his emblem. By contrast, the simple white rose has been a symbol of England since Roman times.

"All three varieties have been around for a long time in this country," said Roger Phillips, the rose specialist.

"The difference here is that they are repeating history by replanting all three in their original home."

[Article by Helen Studd in The Times, 10 June 2002]

oOo

Two letters of response to this article raise some interesting points:

Sir, Only two of the three varieties of rose mentioned in your report ("War-torn roses reunited after 500 years", June 10) have any relevance to the War of the Roses.

Rosa alba maxima (the Jacobite Rose) is generally quoted as the White Rose of York but in fact the true variety is Rosa alba semi-plena.

Rosa gallical officinalis (the Red Rose of Lancaster), with light crimson semi-double flowers, is often called the Apothecary's Rose because of its scent-retaining properties. There is considerable doubt as to the veracity of the historical claims made for this rose. In all probability the Red Rose of Lancaster was a deeper form of another gallica. Nobody really knows.

Rosa gallica versicolor (Rosa mundi) is a sport (mutation) of R. gallica officinalis, to which it occasionally reverts. The blooms are striped light crimson and white. There is also in existence a damask rose called York and Lancs which has blotches of pink and white and bears no relation to Rosa mundi and is a totally inferior variety.

I remain,
Yours sincerely,
JOHN MATTOCK
(Horticultural adviser to the Royal National Rose Society) June 10

 

Sir, It is a pretty fiction that Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York adopted the rose Gallica versicolor or Rosa mundi in 1485, but it cannot be true because the first mention of that variety is in 1581 on the Continent, and about 1620 in England.

What Henry Tudor did was to devise an emblem (known as the Tudor Rose) in which substantial petals of the Red Rose of Lancaster surround a much smaller White Rose of York. This was somewhat unfair, since Elizabeth's hereditary claim to the throne was far stronger than his.

The Wars of the Roses were not known as such to the participants, and the scene in the Temple Garden depicted in the Palace of Westminster and described by Shakespeare is unlikely to have taken place, for the simple reason that Henry VI of Lancaster never had a rose of any colour as his badge.

The English owe the origin of their national flower to Eleanor of Provence, who used the rose as her personal badge. By marrying our Henry III, she brought it into the royal house, and thence to the families of York and Lancaster. If we want to pinpoint a date when the rose first became royal and English, January 14 1236 is it.

The newly planted roses are lovely in themselves and it is good they are back in the Inns of Court.

Yours,
PETER HARKNESS
(Vice-President, Royal National Rose Society) June 10

[Letters printed in The Times on 11 June 2002]


Margaret of York's Golden Crown returns to England after 500 Years

Margaret of York's crown has returned to the Tower of London for an exhibition to mark the Golden Jubilee. The crown, studded with pearls and gems, left England with Margaret (1446-1503), the sister of Edward IV, in 1468 when she married Charles the Bold of Burgundy.

The crown, which bears Margaret's name in coloured enamel, is on loan from Aachen Cathedral in Germany. It is used there on feast days to crown the statue of the Virgin Mary.

The exhibition at the Tower, entitled The Castle and The Crown, also displays other ancient pieces of royal regalia, including the travelling cases used to transport the Crown Jewels and the menu from Richard III's coronation banquet in 1483 at which guests enjoyed "soles in salamay".

The exhibition is being housed in the White Tower in a room at the top of the tower which was originally used as a bathing chamber for new knights. Knights-elect would gather in the tower, strip naked, bathe and be shaved as an act of physical and spiritual purification. They would then climb into beds to dry off and would be instructed by established knights on proper chivalrous behaviour. The ritual, which led to the name Knights of the Bath, ended with an all-night prayer vigil. The men would be formally knighted by the sovereign using the Sword of State the following morning. These rites of bathing dated as far back as 1128 and were not formally abolished until 1815.


Discovery of grave may solve mystery death of Henry VIII's brother at 15
April 2002 By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph

Archaeologists have discovered the grave of Prince Arthur, the older brother of Henry VIII, who died of a mysterious illness when he was 15.

Using ground-probing radar, they have pinpointed the final resting place of the first Tudor Prince of Wales below the limestone floor of Worcester Cathedral.

The researchers believe the discovery could help identify the "sweating sickness" that killed the heir to the Tudor dynasty 500 years ago.

Details of the grave will be presented at Cheltenham Science Festival, sponsored by The Daily Telegraph.

Dr Julian Litten, a historian and expert in burial rites involved in the study, said Prince Arthur's illness could be linked to the fate half a century later of Edward VI, born to Henry VIII and Jane Seymour in 1537. Edward VI also died before his 16th birthday having ascended to the throne when he was nine.

What is it that carries off first Arthur and then Edward when they are so young?" said Dr Litten. "As yet, no one has been able to come up with an answer. But the death of Edward meant that the Tudor dynasty was terribly short lived."

The researchers hope to use an endoscope to examine Prince Arthur's grave without disturbing the remains.

Prince Arthur was born in 1486, the first son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. In a deal arranged when the prince was barely a toddler, Arthur was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain.

The union was an astute political move that created a bond between England and Spain and sidelined France

After years of negotiation, the couple were married in November 1501 when Arthur was 15. The newlyweds were sent to live in Ludlow castle. After a bitter winter, Prince Arthur died six months later from "sweating sickness" and was buried in Worcester.

Catherine of Aragon remained in England after the prince's death, eventually marrying his younger brother, Henry VIII. The couple's failure to produce a male heir led to divorce and the Reformation.

Christopher Guy, Worcester Cathedral's archaeologist, has now completed the first survey of Prince Arthur's chantry to find the exact location of the grave.

Radar located a likely tomb under the floor several feet from the prince's tomb chest, which was built 20 years after his death. The radar revealed that the soil had been in filled, but not whether there were any remains inside.

"We think it is possible that we have identified the grave, which is extremely exciting," he said. "The chantry appears to have been built in 1504, two years after Prince Arthur's death."

Mr Guy said there were puzzling questions about Arthur's death and why a man reputed to be in poor health was sent to the remoteness of Ludlow, far from the London physicians.

Peter Vaughan, of the Worcester Prince Arthur Committee, which researched the funeral for a re-enactment earlier in the month, believes there is evidence of foul play.

He said: "He wasn't a strong character, unlike his younger brother. Could it be that his father was strong enough to see that the best interests of the Tudors were to be served by Henry Duke of York, rather than Arthur?"

However, historians such as Dr David Starkey and Dr Julian Litten have dismissed suggestions of neglect or murder. "There is nothing fishy about his demise," said Dr Litten. "He was in Ludlow as an ambassador for a king setting up a new dynasty."

Dr Litten believes the real mystery over Arthur's death was the nature of the disease, and whether it was a genetic condition that was also passed to Edward VI.

The text for this article was given with permission by David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph along with the first picture at the beginning.

The remaining pictures were taken by Pam Benstead from the Worcester Branch of the Richard III Society and has let us use them with this news item.

Taken from Melanie Hall's article in the Worcester Evening News, April 25 2002

A 500-year-old royal murder mystery could be solved by archaeological work being carried out on a tomb in Worcester Cathedral. Scientists have taken a step closer to unravelling the mystery surrounding the death of Prince Arthur in 1502 which has dogged historians for five centuries.

The prince was 15 when he died at Ludlow Castle and then buried in the cathedral, making way for his brother, Henry VIII, to take the throne. But there has always been speculation that the then Prince of Wales, married to Catherine of Aragon, was poisoned, possibly by his father, Henry VII.

Professor John Hunter of Birmingham University has completed investigative work on Arthur's chantry to locate the prince's remains, before a spectacular re-enactment of his funeral is held in the city. However, any scientist keen to exhume Arthur and carry out toxicology tests would have to secure permission from the Queen.

So far the team of archaeologists have been using radar equipment to pinpoint the skeleton. Professor Hunter said that, if traces of soft tissue were found on the body, a DNA test could determine if Arthur had been poisoned. "We're working on data from the radar as we need to find the body inside the tomb which has been rebuilt and moved closer to the altar since the funeral. The probable reason for this was that, at the time of his sudden death, Arthur was buried in a part of the cathedral not appropriate for his royal status. In those days, the more important you were, the nearer the altar you had to be to speed your way to heaven."

Professor Hunter said that, even if archaeologists found the skeleton, there were ethical reasons governing whether it should be exhumed. "Although this would be fascinating to do, we have to remember that we're dealing with a dead person and have to respect this. Of course, if it's discovered he was poisoned and shouldn't have died, his brother, Henry VIII, would not have been king and subsequently we wouldn't have the Church of England."


Sheriff Hutton
November 2001

English Heritage steps in to save Sheriff Hutton The ruined castle of Sheriff Hutton, an important Ricardian site, has been on English Heritage's Buildings at Risk Register for some time with plans for them to conduct a condition survey, develop a conservation plan followed by a programme of repairs. The collapse of masonry in the north-east tower, however, prompted swift action and an initial grant of £500,000 has been approved and work is about to commence to prevent further collapse. Although the castle is still in private ownership, English Heritage are working with the owner and the conservation plan will hopefully move forward. This will include establishing the significance of the site and there will be a consultation phase with interested parties. The Society has already registered its interest.


Survey by Encyclopaedia Britannica
10 November 2001 Summary of an article in the Independent

The publishers of the Encyclopaedia Britannica recently surveyed 1,000 Britons aged between 15 and 24 to gauge their knowledge of history. Five questions were asked, the first being in what century did Richard the Third become king?

75% of those who responded failed to pick the correct century from the four options given. Scoring was generally poor and the Encyclopaedia's marketing manager commented 'Britain in particular is envied for its rich history.

It's a great shame the young take it so much for granted.' Education pressure groups commented on the results and Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education said 'This clearly shows schools aren't doing their job of teaching important aspects of British history.' Sadly knowledge of later history faired little better with 'most young people unable to explain the importance of D-Day'.


Crosby Hall
September 2001

On the 15 September, the Times reported on the progress of turning Crosby Hall into a Tudor palace and how the millionaire owner was wooing royal craftsmen to recreate his dream. David Honour and Philip Tew have been recruited from the Historic Royal Palaces agency and just one of their challenges is to build an oak staircase using techniques dating from the fifteenth century.

Christopher Moran acquired the freehold of the Hall in 1988 and the transformation is not expected to be completed until 2010. However, a landmark in its development took place recently when the green hoardings around the site were removed after being in place for eight years. The brick building illustrated is one of three sides of the quadrangle of the new palace, the original fifteenth century Hall forming the final side.

The irony, which will not be lost on Ricardians, is of course that a late medieval town house, once occupied by Richard III just prior to his accession, is being turned into a recreation of a Tudor building, the first Tudor king having defeated Richard at Bosworth in 1485. The journalist Dominic Kennedy, writing the article, whilst correctly dating the building of the Hall from 1466 describes it as the 'finest surviving example of a Tudor hall', thus pre-dating the Tudor regime by some nineteen years! Mr Kennedy concludes his article with some of the dramatic events that took place at Crosby Hall, including: 'it was here that he [Richard] received news of the murder of the Princes in the Tower, the boys who stood between him and the Crown'. Mr Kennedy's research in this instance appears to limited to Shakespeare's play. The Society's Secretary has written to the Times regarding the errors.


Hammond versus Hicks
August 2001

BBC History Magazine's Counterblast gave the Richard III Society a chance to challenge the allegations about King Richard made in an article by Michael Hicks in their July 2000 issue. However, to be absolutely fair to the readership Professor Hicks was given space to restate his traditionalist views. The Society's retiring Research Officer, Peter Hammond, succinctly and admirably summarised the Tudor propaganda campaign posthumously made against King Richard. Mr Hammond concluded that after examining the contemporary sources this 'traditional picture of Richard III is certainly not true'. The editor was perhaps unconvinced. Included in their Milestones - It happened in August feature, the Battle of Bosworth was recalled. BBC History reported that Richard's reign had 'been marked by ruthlessness and favouritism', whereas the victor, Henry Tudor, provided 'a new style of kingship, renovating government by strengthening the judicial system and the treasury. A nice euphemism for taxation!


Call to re-examine the Bones
August 2001

Over the past few weeks, the subject of a re-examination of 'the bones' has re-emerged. This began with an article in the Yorkshire Post in August this year which was picked up by the Daily Express who ran the following item under their the McEntee Diary on 16 August:

The Queen, I suggest may soon be missing the days when a monarch could shout 'off to the Tower'. For HM is being challenged by the Richard III Society over her right to ban DNA tests on skeletons reputed to be the Princes in the Tower - Edward IV and Richard Duke of York. The Society is hoping to clear the name of Richard III thought to have murdered the princes who disappeared from the Tower in 1483. Skeletons were found in 1674, bolstering the murder theory. Last year, the Queen refused a call by a Channel 4 documentary - fronted by none other than her son Prince Edward -to allow the tests which the Society believes, would prove the skeletons were not the princes. The Society now argues the Queen has no right to stop the tests because the bones are not officially royal. 

The Diary continues with a report of a petition sent to the Queen via the internet which has been instigated by a member of the Society and concludes with "if Edward couldn't persuade HM, I fear an internet petition will have little effect." 

This item raises two issues. The first is the need to confirm the Society's official view of a re-examination and second is the hazard of a single member purporting to represent the Society. The section on the 'Princes in the Tower' has been updated to include the Society's current thinking on a re-examination. 

The Society's General Secretary, Elizabeth Nokes, immediately responded to the Daily Express with: 

I am writing on behalf of the Richard III Society. My attention has been drawn to a report by Mr McEntee in 'Diary' in the Express of 16th August, where it is stated that the Queen has been 'challenged' by the Richard III Society over her right to ban DNA tests on skeletons reputed to be' those of the 'princes in the Tower' and the 'the Society now argues the Queen has no right to stop tests because 'the skeletons are not officially royal'. This is quite untrue. The Richard III Society has not, and will not, make any representation to the Queen about DNA tests. It has accepted the refusal to make tests. The activities of a single member, Mr Geoffrey Richardson, via an internet mail group, are being misrepresented as those of the Society. They are not being carried out on behalf of the Society, and Mr Richardson does not speak for the Society.

The Society, while considering the 1933 examination of the bones purporting to be those of the princes as inconclusive, has no wish for a re-examination of the bones in the near future. If such a re-examination were ever to take place, it would need to deploy more advanced techniques than are likely to be currently available, to establish the identity of the owners of the bones, and their relationship, their sex and their precise age. I would be grateful if you would please publish a correction to your report, making it quite clear that the Society has no involvement whatsoever with any calls for a re-examination of the bones." 

An edited version of this letter appeared in the Daily Express under Letters on 19th August. 

The petition has now been launched although it is addressed to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey rather than direct to the Queen. However, as the Abbey is a Royal Peculiar (i.e. under the jurisdiction of the monarch) the ultimate decision on any re-examination rests with Her Majesty. 

The Society of course acknowledges the right of any individual member to his or her views on the subject of a re-examination. However, the Committee would recommend that members carefully consider the statement published under The Princes in the Tower but to reiterate the salient points: Who will fund the examination of the bones?

• Are we prepared to have a premature re-examination and risk the possibility of being unable to have a another re-examination when improved DNA and other scientific techniques are available? 
• In the case of DNA tests, against whose DNA will the bones be tested?
• Has the relevant genealogy been carried out to find a direct descendant through an unbroken female line?
• Or are the remains of Edward IV and/or Queen Elizabeth Woodville again to be disturbed? 
• What will be the benefit of a re-examination?

If a positive identification of the bones belonging to Edward V and his brother Richard is made this will merely eliminate further speculation about the identity of the pretenders, such as Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Such identification will not offer a solution to when the boys died or who might be responsible for their deaths. Conversely, a negative identification, whilst encouraging further research into the pretenders, will not preclude speculation that they were killed by Richard but buried elsewhere in the Tower. (And before anybody makes the suggestion, this is too big a project for Time Team!)


The Middleham Jewel

In September 1985, beside a footpath that led from Jervaulx Abbey to Covenham Abbey and passing Middleham Castle, was found a gold lozenge-shaped jewel. It was beautifully engraved and on the front was mounted a large cabochon sapphire. The frontal engraving depicted the Holy Trinity and on the reverse was a depiction of the Nativity.

The artefact became known as the Middleham Jewel and its subsequent history produced much media interest. The finder of the jewel, Mr Ted Seaton, together with the owners of the land, sold it at auction to an unnamed foreign buyer for £1.3 million. However, an export licence was required by the purchaser but as the jewel was deemed to be a work of art of outstanding importance the licence was withheld.

The Yorkshire Museum was very keen to acquire the jewel and a fundraising campaign was mounted. A total of £2.420 million was raised to save the jewel for the nation. The major contributors were the National Heritage Memorial Fund who gave £1,771,144 and J. Paul Getty Jr., KBE who contributed £350,000. The Richard III Society raised £2000 and many members contributed individually.

The jewel is now on display in the Yorkshire Museum, Museum Gardens, York.

Further reading The Middleham Jewel and Ring by John Cherry and edited by Elizabeth Hartley York 1994 ISBN 0-905807-12-X