Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Tudors => Topic started by: Kimberly on September 12, 2012, 06:39:58 AM

Title: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on September 12, 2012, 06:39:58 AM
This is so fascinating. If the skeleton is found to be that of Richard, I hope he gets a "proper" burial and tomb/monument, perhaps in York Minster.
Note that the skeleton has "significant spinal abnormalities" ie it shows signs of severe scoliosis which would have resulted in the right shoulder being higher than the left but did not have kyphosis ( a hunchback).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19561018 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19561018)
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kalafrana on September 12, 2012, 09:13:21 AM
Interesting, but let's await the DNA results.

I don't know much about scoliosis - would it affect a person's ability to fight on horseback (something Richard undoubtedly did)?

It's perfectly possible to have uneven shoulders for other reasons. Rowing sweep oars (one oar per rower, as distinct from sculling, which involves one in each hand) tends to produce asymmetrical development in the upper body. My father has noticeably uneven shoulders, which he attributes to heavy use of chisels as an apprentice joiner between ages 16 and 21.

Ann
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on September 12, 2012, 01:07:38 PM
It is 12 weeks until the DNA results are available. They are using the DNA from a descendant of Richard's sister Anne.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 12, 2012, 06:09:03 PM
My best friend has scoiosis, and he has   ridden on horses, donkeys and even a camel. He has a pole  up his back but it does stop him from much.
 He is from Yorkshire and I do not  much stops them from doing anything they want. Of course, they did  not have that prdediure  in Richard IIIs time.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on September 12, 2012, 06:45:37 PM
Hi,

Personally, I hope that if this body (skeleton) is actually Richard III, then he is buried in a tomb in a church or cathedral.
After all, there have been much worse kings and queens given sanctified tombs.......
Henry VII was no saint, and he's buried with honours in Westminster Abbey and even built a chapel there.
Certainly Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were not blameless in several deaths - and they're there too!!!

I don't know whether Richard III was a murderer or not, but he was a king - and of England too.....
He deserves a proper burial and grave (tomb).....

Larry
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Terence on October 04, 2012, 11:04:24 PM
Here's a link to a relative of Richard III who lives near the discovery of his body.  She is not a candidate for mitocondriadal DNA.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Leicestershire-villager-Hilary/story-17018949-detail/story.html

I wish the reporters would stop talking about relatives as "descendants".   GRRR, simply ignorant.

This woman is not a candidate for mtDNA, but there is another source.  Descendants of his sister Anne through the complete female line.  This is being pursued and is the line to verify if this is really Richard III.

Also, the male line could be confirmed if the Beaufort Dukes of Somerset would cooperate.  Interesting possibillity.

T
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kalafrana on October 05, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
The Dukes of Beaufort are descended from an illegitimate son of the penultimate Beaufort Duke of Somerset. But would it be possible to extract anything other than mDNA from the skeleton?

Ann
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on December 10, 2012, 01:50:03 PM
More information, courtesy of the Richard III Society.
 Statement from the University of Leicester.
1 The remains appear to be that of an adult male and are in good condition.

2 This skeleton was found in the Choir - the area reported in the historical record as Richard's burial place.

3  The skeleton appears to have suffered significant peri - mortem trauma to the skull. ( see below ).

4  A barbed metal arrowhead was found between verebrae of the upper back.

5  The skeleton has spinal abnormalities. ( see below ).

The skull had a minimum of two injuries. A small penetrating wound to the top of the head and a second larger wound to the occiput ( base of the skull ). Either of these head wounds would have been fatal and there is a Welsh tradition that Richard was poleaxed. However, it is understood that the preservation of the skull is good enough for a facial reconstruction.
There is a severe scoliosis ( curvature of the spine ) resulting in the right shoulder appearing higher than the left. There is no evidence of Kyphosis ( another form of spinal curvature ).
It is hoped that mDNA will be able to be extracted from the teeth.

The skeleton was mostly complete, although the feet had been destroyed at some point in the past.
The ' shaft grave' was described as a "tight fit for the body" and there was no evidence of a coffin. It is considered probable that the body was buried in a shroud.
Apparently, further details of the scientific study are being witheld for a Channel 4 documentary.
An interesting snippet ( although, heaven knows where the source for this comes from)....." The Times states that the Queen has rejected a request for Richard's reburial in Westminster Abbey".
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on January 24, 2013, 04:24:32 AM
Exciting news today..
On Monday February 4th, Leicester University will be holding a press conference, outlining the research results so far.
At 9 pm, a documentary will be screened on Channel 4 (UK), entitled The King Under the Car Park.
The next Ricardian Bulletin will feature an analysis of the results and, excitingly, colour images of the facial reconstruction.
I will keep everybody informed on this most important news.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on January 24, 2013, 09:00:53 AM
Exciting news today..
On Monday February 4th, Leicester University will be holding a press conference, outlining the research results so far.
At 9 pm, a documentary will be screened on Channel 4 (UK), entitled The King Under the Car Park.
The next Ricardian Bulletin will feature an analysis of the results and, excitingly, colour images of the facial reconstruction.
I will keep everybody informed on this most important news.

    Thank you, "Kimberly," for this update!  I, for one, will be looking forward to the University's results (thus far). The technique of facial reconstruction has made many advances over the years, some quite amazing. I would especially hope to see the subsequent depictions when they are presented.                 Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Terence on January 24, 2013, 10:18:39 PM
Yes, thank you Kimberly.

Reading into the pr  I think it might be safe to assume they have ided the remains as Richard's.  Why else would they have proceeded w/ the facial recognition if it was some anonymous medieval chap?

Here's a funny link to a pro-Richard vid for kids, part of a series called Horrible Histories.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4

T
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: TimM on January 26, 2013, 04:12:18 PM
I hope this much maligned king gets a decent burial.  He deserves that much, considering how much history has judged him based on hearsay testimony.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kalafrana on January 27, 2013, 07:03:52 AM
Personally, I would go for York Minster for burial, not least because Richard himself started building a chantry chapel there before his accession.

Ann
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on January 27, 2013, 10:57:56 AM
Absolutely with you on that one, although there are hints that it might be Leicester Cathedral because  Leicestershire was where he died.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/Visit%20&%20support%20us/RichardIII.html (http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/Visit%20&%20support%20us/RichardIII.html).
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: CountessKate on January 28, 2013, 05:22:16 AM
Well, actually he died on Bosworth field, which after some searching around, archaeologists have demonstrated was about 10 miles west of Leicester, near the village of Stoke Golding.  He didn't have much connection with Leicester which is presumably why he was buried there (no rallying point for anti-Tudorites).
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on January 28, 2013, 10:40:39 AM
I have added a "shire" to my previous post....:-)
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: CountessKate on January 28, 2013, 12:21:32 PM
I was being pedantic!  If the remains are Richard's I'm on the York Minster side of the question, though since possession is 9 points of the law, Leicester is in the better position to hang on to the body.  Various groups seem to be getting very proprietorial and cross about the whole matter.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: CountessKate on February 04, 2013, 05:12:25 AM
After an interminable series of scientific talks, the University of Leicester team have confirmed that there is sufficient DNA evidence to identify the skeleton remains found in Greyfriars car park as those of Richard III.  The remains are to be re-interred in Leicester Cathedral.
Title: Confirmed today! The Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Lucien on February 04, 2013, 05:38:52 AM
Confirmed today:It IS Richard III!

 :) :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire/21063882

Title: Re: Confirmed today! The Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on February 04, 2013, 07:33:11 AM
Confirmed today:It IS Richard III!

 :) :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire/21063882



         Well done, University of Leicester team !   The photos of the spine and the head wounds are impressive.  We will now look forward to the presentation of the subsequent facial replication.            AP.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 04, 2013, 08:36:24 AM
Seriously, the sheer amount of fanboy squeeing over this announcement in my house this morning has been embarrassing. I have lived long enough to see them find the Imperial family, Anastasia and now Richard. I can go happily!

Simon
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on February 04, 2013, 09:11:34 AM
Me too Simon. Funny isn't it? I thought this morning- thank god I have lived to see this come to pass. Now I only hope he will receive a Catholic burial ( no such thing as C of E in Richard's day).
Looking forward to seeing the documentary tonight and seeing the reconstruction of his face.
Cheers all. Kim.
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on February 04, 2013, 09:24:17 AM
Lots more info here. I know its the Daily Wail but the images are clear, in particular the photograph of the skeleton in the grave showing the scoliosis. The "humiliation wounds" are so sad to see
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273164/Richard-III-Scientists-reveal-DNA-results-confirm-kings-body-car-park-Leicester.html#axzz2JwZHjtT7 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273164/Richard-III-Scientists-reveal-DNA-results-confirm-kings-body-car-park-Leicester.html#axzz2JwZHjtT7)


"Literary sources are now going to be re - evaluated, reversing the image of the maligned King. We are going to have to re write the history books" ( Phillipa Langley ).
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: CountessKate on February 04, 2013, 11:11:12 AM
Quote
"Literary sources are now going to be re - evaluated, reversing the image of the maligned King. We are going to have to re write the history books" ( Phillipa Langley ).

I'm not sure how they can revise Richard III's image, just on the basis of the discovery of his remains, with the exception of dispelling the story that the body was tipped into the river when Greyfriars was torn down.  The remains in fact conform very closely to historical sources which state he was killed in battle, his body was stripped and exposed to public view in Leicester (during which it presumably received the postmortem injuries) after which it was buried in Greyfriars, where it was eventually found.  All the damage to the King's image has already been examined by historians - the revision of his image is hardly new - and while his physical body is a very interesting and exciting find, there is no logical reason for anyone to change their views about Richard or rewrite any history books except with a footnote.  One can't blame Philippa Langley from doing the equivalent of a media victory dance, which is well deserved, but it doesn't actually add anything to the question of whether the accusation of murdering his nephews is true or not, and that is the only real thing which modern historians cannot find incontrovertible evidence for or against him. 
Title: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: grandduchessella on February 04, 2013, 11:56:36 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/uk-britain-richard-idUSLNE91301X20130204
Title: Re: the Remains of Richard III found ?
Post by: Kimberly on February 04, 2013, 12:58:19 PM
I added the quote because it might arouse some interest, glad I did now. Thanks for your input CountessKate.
Ms Langley has also said that she has designed an appropriate "tomb" for Richard's remains which will be revealed ( probably to the Richard III Society first) and discussed.
I heard on the radio just now that he will be reburied in the spring of 2014 as they have further testing to do, to look at diet etc.
There is a 1 and a 1/2 hour documentary tonight on Channel 4 at 9 pm. My poor husband has to sit through it, he will probably nod off next to the pooch :-)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on February 04, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
Interesting information about the spine. I wonder how much Shapespeare exaggerated it.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Jen_94 on February 04, 2013, 03:38:18 PM
Currently watching a programme about all this on TV (Channel 4, UK). It's really interesting and the article is too. Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Blurgle on February 04, 2013, 11:40:01 PM
Interesting information about the spine. I wonder how much Shapespeare exaggerated it.

Quite a bit. Shakespeare (after his references) had Richard as hunchbacked, lame, and with a withered arm. Richard's feet weren't recovered but his legs and arms appear healthy, and his scoliosis wouldn't have caused a hunchback.

One shoulder would have been higher than the other. His scoliosis is slightly greater than Usain Bolt's, but not much.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 05, 2013, 06:07:35 AM
The scientists examining the skeleton in the tv programme suggested that the (quite pronounced) curvature of the spine would have really been most apparent when the body was naked, but only slightly visible when clothed or in armour, which made me wonder whether, when the king's body was exposed after the Battle of Bosworth, the idea of severe deformities started to take shape, and played into the hands of the Tudors.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 06, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
A lot of people base their opinions of Richard III on the Shakespeare play, which paints him as an out and out villian.  Of course, this play was written more than a century later, when the Tudors were still in power.  It's all hearsay.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 06, 2013, 03:26:12 PM
A lot of people base their opinions of Richard III on the Shakespeare play, which paints him as an out and out villian.  Of course, this play was written more than a century later, when the Tudors were still in power.  It's all hearsay.

But it's interesting how even today, in order to make a more interesting TV programme, even more myths are perpetuated.  The presenter of the Channel 4 documentary, Simon Farnaby (a comedian and actor), stated with great confidence (in between consoling the ever-tearful Philippa Langley) that of the 23 English monarchs since Richard III, not one was related to him.  This is entirely untrue - they were all descended from Edward IV, Richard's elder brother, and Henry VII was actually a cousin.  But the media weren't interested in actual facts or genuine history - they wanted the image of everyone believing this terrible black picture of Richard, and that we all should now be entirely overcome with remorse at thinking these bad thoughts when we see Philippa weeping over the remains.  But in fact no modern historian of the medieval period believes the Tudor line and if you go to a modern production of Shakespeare today the programme notes usually give you the more balanced thinking about Richard III, so there's plenty of material about with the non-Tudor version if people are genuinely interested (or even if you just read Wikipedia).  I don't think we should swap a biased view of Richard III for another biased view - he wasn't a terrible villain but he may not have been entirely sweetness and light either.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 07, 2013, 02:48:28 AM
'I don't think we should swap a biased view of Richard III for another biased view - he wasn't a terrible villain but he may not have been entirely sweetness and light either.'

Indeed. To be a success in medieval times as a ruler or nobleman, one had to be a pretty ruthless operator (look at Edward I and Henry II as examples). The Weak Kings of 1066 And All That lacked this essential ruthless streak. Richard was possibly more ruthless than most (though no medieval supplanter left his predecessor alive for long!), but had he defeated Henry Tudor and settled down to a lengthy reign, the disappearance of his nephews would doubtless be glossed over. Bosworth could quite easily have gone the other way. Richard personally killed Tudor's stand-bearer and was within feet of Tudor himself when he was killed.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 07, 2013, 05:54:45 AM
Quote
To be a success in medieval times as a ruler or nobleman, one had to be a pretty ruthless operator (look at Edward I and Henry II as examples).

That's absolutely true, and you only have to look at Richard III's elder brother, Edward IV, who had their brother George, Duke of Clarence, executed for treason.  George was thoroughly untrustworthy, a traitor to whichever sided he happened to be on, but he was a brother.  However, a tough medieval ruler who had fought his way to the top couldn't let such a character sit at his back and Edward got rid of him - an unpleasant event but no one seems to have blamed him.  I'm not equating this to the princes in the Tower - that was a genuinely horrible act, whoever did it or ordered it done.  But it does demonstrate that ruthlessness and treachery was part of family relations at the time, though in fact in this context Richard was a good and loyal brother to Edward IV - but he would always have this example in front of him.  And it was very likely Edward IV who ordered the murder of his predecessor, Henry VI, unless you buy into the theory that a perfectly healthy man died of melancholy at an exceptionally convenient moment for the house of York.  Richard was accused of that murder as well, but if he did do it would hardly have been without the knowledge or consent of his brother.  Even before Richard, the house of York was not a garden of white roses.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 07, 2013, 11:30:42 AM
I'm not saying Richard III was an all around nice guy, he clearly wasn't.  However, there is not one shred of evidence that he had the two Princes in the Tower killed.  It's all hearsay.  As I said, if you brought Richard III into a modern court of law and charged him with the murder of said Princes, the case would be quickly thrown out.  Hearsay is not admissible (you're a lawyer, right Ann, you might know of such things).  

Now, I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm just saying that there is no evidence that he did.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 07, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
Hello Tim

I would say that it would be impossible to convict Richard of the murder of his nephews in a modern court of law because of problems with evidence.

However, I'm inclined to think that he was responsible, and for these reasons. One of the formative periods of Richard's life was, I think, 1470-71 when rebellion by Warwick in conjunction with Clarence led Edward IV to flee the country. Warwick reinstated the hapless Henry VI as king, and this regime had a decent amount of support. It took two very hard-fought battles to restore Edward to the throne, and Richard, then only 18 years old, was a leading figure in the campaign. Henry VI had no personal credibility whatever, but he was an anointed king and so important as a figurehead. Richard's nephews were healthy young lads, and within 4-5 years would have been old enough to be plotting on their own behalf - and remember that Edward IV had fought his way to the throne at 18.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 07, 2013, 01:03:57 PM
Hello everybody.
Seems like Leicester Cathedral WILL be the final resting place for Richard's remains.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-21373538 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-21373538).

 Gloucester Cathedral was looking into the possibility of the remains being moved there and reburied there.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-s-remains-interred-Gloucester/story-17208449-detail/story.html#axzz2KF1qfjIq (http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-s-remains-interred-Gloucester/story-17208449-detail/story.html#axzz2KF1qfjIq) .

Just a polite request but could we keep this sticky for the discovery of Richard's remains, any discussion regarding the dig and the eventual re- interment.
I would love you all to continue discussions on other aspects of his life in the appropriate threads, I will "bump" them up to this page.
Thanks, Kimx
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 07, 2013, 03:10:15 PM
Quote
I would say that it would be impossible to convict Richard of the murder of his nephews in a modern court of law because of problems with evidence.

Thanks, Ann.


Quote
Just a polite request but could we keep this sticky for the discovery of Richard's remains, any discussion regarding the dig and the eventual re- interment.

Okay, Kimberly.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 07, 2013, 04:10:14 PM
hey, Tim, its no biggy just want to keep things together. Please keep it up.
Cheers. Kimx
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on February 08, 2013, 06:47:19 AM
The burial arguement is pretty much window dressing.
As is the case with any exhumation the licence clearly states the body should be reinterred as near to the place it originally rested I believe it specifies the Cathedral in Leicester or somewhere else appropriate at the discretion of the University of Leicester.
As to York Minster - it is has said further that it doesn't want to involve itself in an arguement between cathedrals. If there was a legal challenge at a later date it might be drawn further on the matter.
The arguement is a bit odd given both cathedrals's are now Anglican and Richard III was a Roman Catholic.
I find the row a bit unseemly and pointless - the exhumation and dna analysis give us fresh insight into Richard and suggest that tudor 'myth' about his appearance might have just been exageration of a slight deformity rather than completely made up- the burial row is about city's competing for tourists and their cash nothing more.
As I am from York i have no doubt many people believe Richard to be worthy of some recognition as a 'local' boy but the basis for the arguement is on the whole historically inaccurate and spurious.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 08, 2013, 09:23:11 AM
The burial arguement is pretty much window dressing.
As is the case with any exhumation the licence clearly states the body should be reinterred as near to the place it originally rested I believe it specifies the Cathedral in Leicester or somewhere else appropriate at the discretion of the University of Leicester.
As to York Minster - it is has said further that it doesn't want to involve itself in an arguement between cathedrals. If there was a legal challenge at a later date it might be drawn further on the matter.
The arguement is a bit odd given both cathedrals's are now Anglican and Richard III was a Roman Catholic.
I find the row a bit unseemly and pointless - the exhumation and dna analysis give us fresh insight into Richard and suggest that tudor 'myth' about his appearance might have just been exageration of a slight deformity rather than completely made up- the burial row is about city's competing for tourists and their cash nothing more.
As I am from York i have no doubt many people believe Richard to be worthy of some recognition as a 'local' boy but the basis for the arguement is on the whole historically inaccurate and spurious.


I'm can't say I find the 'Roman Catholic' argument particularly convincing insofar as there was hardly a choice at the time.  And that sort of logic would dictate the reburying of all those monarchs who were Roman Catholics, which seems just daft, even in the case of Mary Tudor.  While I agree there probably is a tourist-attraction competition going on, there does also seem to be a sentimental aspect, emanating from the Richard III society, which appears to feel that Richard was particularly associated with the city of York and would possibly have wished to be buried there.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 08, 2013, 09:28:21 AM
Richard actually gave an endowment to York Minster for a chantry chapel before his accession. So there is definite evidence that he intended to be buried there. Of course, it is possible that his plans would have changed had he reigned longer.

Further, he was apparently very devout even by the standards of his day - he had special devotions to no fewer than 33 saints, according to one source I read.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 08, 2013, 09:39:33 AM
Richard actually gave an endowment to York Minster for a chantry chapel before his accession. So there is definite evidence that he intended to be buried there. Of course, it is possible that his plans would have changed had he reigned longer.

Further, he was apparently very devout even by the standards of his day - he had special devotions to no fewer than 33 saints, according to one source I read.

Ann

Richard also endowed chantries at Middleham and St Mary's, Barking, so one might say on those grounds these places also have claims! 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 08, 2013, 10:46:56 AM
The finding of Richard III's body and the confirming of its identity by DNA tests suggests some interesting comparisons with the identification of the Romanov bodies.

Richard III died in 1485 (523 years ago).

The Romanovs died in 1918 (95 years ago).

Richard III was buried hurriedly, without a coffin or embalming, in bare earth.

The Romanovs were buried hurriedly, without coffins or embalming, in bare earth.

Richard III's body was found in the general vicinity where records suggested it might be found.

The Romanovs' bodies were found in the general vicinity where records suggested they might be found.

Richard III's body showed injuries consistent with those reported near the time of his death.

The Romanov bodies showed injuries consistent with those reported near the time of their deaths.

Richard III's body was stripped naked and showed sings of wounds of humiliation beyond those that caused his death in battle.

The Romanov bodies were stripped naked and showed signs of post-mortem mutilation.

There were no items of clothing or personal artifacts found with Richard III's body.

Numerous fragments of clothing, jewels, and personal artifacts, as well as dental work of the highest order -- all consistent with the Imperial Family -- were found with the Romanov bodies.

Richard III was identified through matrilineal mtDNA, 17 generations removed.

The Romanovs' bodies were identified both by comparisons of matrilineal mtDNA 3 generations removed and by fraternal Romanov DNA of the same generation.

The DNA identification of Richard III has been met with almost universal acceptance.  The only challenge raised so far does not deny the identity but only questions the propriety of pronouncing the identity confirmed until the DNA tests are peer reviewed.

The Romanov DNA tests have been peer reviewed multiple times, with all findings confirmed.

Richard III will apparently pass quietly into history as having finally been found and properly buried.

With the Romanovs -- despite 7 bodies with multiple DNA matches instead of 1 body with 1 match, corpses more than 4 centuries newer, and peer review already completed -- the controversy from the fringes of Russian history study still bubbles up, with authors and journalists who staked their reputations on Anastasia's and Alexei's survival still hanging on for dear life . . . and still finding a following that is pumping out a new generation of conspiracy-based books and other nonsense.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 08, 2013, 12:34:43 PM
Interesting points.

Of course, if the mDNA hadn't matched it wouldn't have necessarily proved that it wasn't Richard, only that there was a break somewhere in the matrilinear chain from Richard's sister - by no means impossible over 17 generations! The chain in the case of the Romanovs was a whole lot shorter!

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 08, 2013, 01:42:37 PM
Of course, if the mDNA hadn't matched it wouldn't have necessarily proved that it wasn't Richard, only that there was a break somewhere in the matrilinear chain from Richard's sister . . . .

True.

And for most historians, even absent the DNA findings, the long list of circumstantial evidence relating to the Romanov remains was enough to confirm the massacre of the Romanovs where and when long believed by most people:  the right number of bodies of the right genders and ages, the bodies found where Yurovsky and others reported them to be, the detritus of clothing and effects found with the bodies that was consistent with what was known about the family, the forensic matching of some skulls to photographs of the imperial family . . . and the fact that none of them were seen in the decades after their disappearance.  Other, of course, than:

Anastasia (Anna Anderson, Eugenia Smith, Eleanor Kruger, Natalia Bilikhodze, and Nadezdha Vasileyva)
Olga (Marga Boodts)
Tatiana (Larissa Tudor, Maddess Aiort, Michelle Anches, and even Anna Anderson before she realized she was too short to be Tatiana)
Maria (Granny Alina, Ceclava Czapska)
Alexei (Heino Tammet, Eugene Ivanoff, Alexander Savin, Georgi Zhudin, Michael Goleniewski, Nikolai Chebotarev, Alexei Poutziato, Joseph Veres, Vasily Filatov)

The Romanovs always did get around.  


________________

Sorry, folks.  I shouldn't have pulled this interesting discussion of Richard III off track.  I just get kind of carried away with parallels and contrasts in history.


Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: LadyHezter on February 08, 2013, 02:09:22 PM
You are right, Tsarfan,

but there is also the difference between the churches. I don´t think the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church are disagreeing
with these recent findings-( Richard III,)  -BUT  -the ROC is STILL  hesitating about the Romanov remains. And unfortenately
they seem to go on with this "hesitation" in eternity.
(which partly  helps the "conspiration -theorist" go on forever too, at least some of them )
 
L.H
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 08, 2013, 02:54:04 PM
. . . but there is also the difference between the churches. I don´t think the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church are disagreeing
with these recent findings-( Richard III,)  -BUT  -the ROC is STILL  hesitating about the Romanov remains.

Yes, and for the life of me I cannot figure out what their agenda is in refuting such clear evidence.

Louis Charles commented to me this morning on why almost everyone will readily accept the identity of Richard III's remains based on location, scoliosis, injuries, and a match of 17th-generation mtDNA to a corpse over 500 years old, but groups such as the ROC will not accept a larger quantum of evidence on the Romanov remains.  He said it is because almost everyone who thinks about Richard at all wants him to have been found, but some people do not want the Romanovs to have been found.

He's right.  But WHY is it so important to anyone today that the Romanovs not have been massacred in Ekaterinburg?  Surviving that or not, they would all have long been dead by now.  There are plenty of undisputed Romanovs in line to mount the throne (although their endless, quaint squabbles over House Law and which of them is the legitimate pretender plod ever onward).  But the throne is gone, and whether or not it ever comes back (and I believe it won't) has everything to do with modern Russian politics and conditions and nothing to do with whether or not anyone made it alive out of the Ipatiev house.

My suspicion rests on Putin.  He is clearly trying to generate a longing for a return to Imperial Russia's place on the world stage and to attach his own star to the hope of that return to lost glory.  Perhaps he calculates that, by preventing some kind of emotional closure on the end of the Romanov dynasty, he imparts an energy to newly-aroused daydreams that he can exploit.  And, in a country that is suffering the fastest population decline of the developed world (171 deaths for every 100 births) and the alarming implications of that decline, daydreams can be a potent political tool, at least in the short term.

But I don't know.  Maybe the ROC is just hopelessly confused by science and reason.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: LadyHezter on February 08, 2013, 06:14:25 PM
Well,
it is a difficult question, indeed. But who has more to win in this particular case ?
Putin will be voted out of office some day, but the ROC seems to gain more and more influence in the russian
society nowadays.  

It´s an interesting  thing, this "revival" of old Russia.I only wonder what ordinary russians really think about it.

As You mentioned, the population  declines all the time, not only by death, but also emigration-there seems to be a big brain-drain
going on. I myself can see that, where I live, -getting more russian-speaking neighbours every year.
And they are  the younger generation, probably under 40-most of them.

L.H




Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 08, 2013, 08:46:20 PM
But who has more to win in this particular case?

That's what so perplexes me.  The ROC needs martyrs, and they have them with or without the bodies being found.

Putin, whose concept of "managed democracy" with its peculiarly Russian mix of elections and bequeathed power, seems to be setting his system up as the natural successor to tsarism.  Could it be that he figures the best way to keep any nascent interest in a Romanov restoration from taking root is to sow confusion about survivors, making the already muddy claims of the senior Romanovs-in-exile even muddier by encouraging speculation about direct descendants of Nicholas being out there somewhere?

That seems a little far-fetched (okay, a lot far-fetched).  But, having explored the incredibly byzantine workings and counter-workings of Russian police and intelligence services that carried over from the tsarist era into the soviet period, I have to wonder.  And one should never forget that Putin is himself a spawn of the KGB and that he has packed his government -- about 25% of the bureaucracy -- with soloviki (displaced KGB agents).  Such convoluted reasoning would come naturally enough to him.

____________

Okay, I keep pulling us further off topic.  This could be an interesting discussion if anyone could suggest another thread to take it . . . but it probably doesn't belong here.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: LadyHezter on February 08, 2013, 10:33:10 PM
Well  I was searching this forum and found a thread under The Final Chapter- Why does the Russian Orthodox Church chooses not to believe...
Maybe one of the moderators could remove  these last posts and put them under that thread instead ?

Thanks in advance.
L.H
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 09, 2013, 01:12:56 AM
Another difference is that, in the case of Richard III, there was no cover up after the fact.  The Tudors did not say "the world will never know what we did here today".   Everyone knew Richard died at Botsworth Field.

We all know the Romanovs murder was covered up until the fall of the USSR in 1991.


Quote
Putin, whose concept of "managed democracy" with its peculiarly Russian mix of elections and bequeathed power, seems to be setting his system up as the natural successor to tsarism

I wonder if Putin is planning on bringing back the throne, with himself as tsar.  To do that, he would need the support of the ROC.  Maybe this is why they are dragging their feet in recognizing the remains.  Of course, one still has to ask why.  Putin is not related to the Romanovs.  If he does become tsar, it would be a whole new dynasty.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 09, 2013, 02:54:59 AM
Well  I was searching this forum and found a thread under The Final Chapter- Why does the Russian Orthodox Church chooses not to believe...
Maybe one of the moderators could remove  these last posts and put them under that thread instead ?

Thanks in advance.
L.H


Hi I think I will keep the posts here. I was musing about these parallels only the other day but from a slightly different angle. On another forum ( not history), a very large thread grew over a very short time with members criticising Philippa Langley and her " over the top histrionics" regarding the discovery and identification of the remains. Her insistance of draping a flag over the box of remains when they were removed from the dig site and her tears and sobs when the face of Richard was finally revealed. I found these comments quite cruel ( although she was extremely, shall we say, excitable). However, these were the remains of England's last Plantagenet King and not of some poor, faceless peasant and she had been central to the discovery. I could only compare her reactions to that of some dedicated historian, passionate about his/her subject - in this case, the Romanov bones - gazing down on the newly discovered remains of the Russian royal family.
Kim
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 09, 2013, 06:59:05 AM
There are other parallels between Richard III and Nicholas II that I find interesting:

The deaths of both ended dynasties that were just over 300 years old.  (The Plantagenets from 1154-1485 and the Romanovs from 1613-1917.)

Both rulers succeeded kings who died unexpectedly early.  (Edward IV at age 41 and Alexander III at 49.)

The dynasties of both rulers were mired in violence.  (Richard's father and his brother were killed in the Wars of the Roses, and Nicholas' grandfather and uncle were murdered by revolutionaries, and his father lived virtually behind fortress walls.)

Each had a brother named George who died before they did.

Both rulers died violently at the hands of their own people.

The successor governments to both reigns sought to kill as many family members of the dead rulers as possible.

The bodies of both rulers were lost, then found by interested history buffs and identified by DNA.

Both rulers left legacies that remain hotly debated to this day.  (There's more to say here than this thread can contain.)

Richard's death marked the end of the Middle Ages.

Nicholas' death marked the end of the era of monarchical rule in Europe (drawing here a distinction between ruling and reigning, the latter of which limps along in western Europe).



Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 09, 2013, 07:28:16 AM
Quote
On another forum ( not history), a very large thread grew over a very short time with members criticising Philippa Langley and her " over the top histrionics" regarding the discovery and identification of the remains. Her insistance of draping a flag over the box of remains when they were removed from the dig site and her tears and sobs when the face of Richard was finally revealed. I found these comments quite cruel ( although she was extremely, shall we say, excitable). However, these were the remains of England's last Plantagenet King and not of some poor, faceless peasant and she had been central to the discovery. I could only compare her reactions to that of some dedicated historian, passionate about his/her subject - in this case, the Romanov bones - gazing down on the newly discovered remains of the Russian royal family.

I myself grew irritated with the Philippa Langley emotings but not because of her feelings in themselves, which were understandable in view of the heavy personal investment she had in the identification of the remains, but because of the intense television dwelling on this as it made for a more exciting programme, and because the amount of personal investment in a particular theory makes for bad history.  One could tell, for example, that Philippa Langley was genuinely shocked that the skeleton of Richard III had clear spinal scoliosis, thus suggesting that the 'myth' of Richard's deformity was not in fact an absolute myth, but nevertheless cut into her view that the Tudors had invented everything about Richard III.  To a significant extent, her historical perspective is now based on emotion in this particular area, and by placing her as the focal point of the documentary, this emotion starts to validate for the watchers theories that have no basis in historical fact - that is, that Richard III was innocent of all the crimes of which he was accused.  She was convinced by some heavenly source that Richard's remains were under the car park, she was right, she was sure the remains found were his, she was right, she looks at the facial reconstruction and emotes that this is not the face of the killer - well, with the last she might be right but she might be wrong.  The last theory is bad history.  She is passionate about her subject, but I cannot compare her to a dedicated historian insofar as she has crossed the line between what she believes to be true and what she can demonstrate to be true.  There are all sorts of reasons why people or institutions don't wish to acknowledge a particular truth, and sometimes it isn't necessarily for a bad reason, but there is just too much emotional investment in believing something different.  
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 09, 2013, 07:38:12 AM
Quote
Both rulers died violently at the hands of their own people.

I don't think there is a real parallel between the two rulers in this respect.  Richard III was killed by the forces of a contender for the throne - not a spontaneous uprising of his own people.

Quote
Richard's death marked the end of the Middle Ages.

Only if you're in England - most modern historians make a far less precise distinction though the 'early modern' period is generally dated from the fall of Constantinople in 1453.  But one could argue for earlier dating in, for example, Italy or Portugal.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 09, 2013, 08:51:26 AM
Quote
On another forum ( not history), a very large thread grew over a very short time with members criticising Philippa Langley and her " over the top histrionics" regarding the discovery and identification of the remains. Her insistance of draping a flag over the box of remains when they were removed from the dig site and her tears and sobs when the face of Richard was finally revealed. I found these comments quite cruel ( although she was extremely, shall we say, excitable). However, these were the remains of England's last Plantagenet King and not of some poor, faceless peasant and she had been central to the discovery. I could only compare her reactions to that of some dedicated historian, passionate about his/her subject - in this case, the Romanov bones - gazing down on the newly discovered remains of the Russian royal family.

I myself grew irritated with the Philippa Langley emotings but not because of her feelings in themselves, which were understandable in view of the heavy personal investment she had in the identification of the remains, but because of the intense television dwelling on this as it made for a more exciting programme, and because the amount of personal investment in a particular theory makes for bad history.  One could tell, for example, that Philippa Langley was genuinely shocked that the skeleton of Richard III had clear spinal scoliosis, thus suggesting that the 'myth' of Richard's deformity was not in fact an absolute myth, but nevertheless cut into her view that the Tudors had invented everything about Richard III.  To a significant extent, her historical perspective is now based on emotion in this particular area, and by placing her as the focal point of the documentary, this emotion starts to validate for the watchers theories that have no basis in historical fact - that is, that Richard III was innocent of all the crimes of which he was accused.  She was convinced by some heavenly source that Richard's remains were under the car park, she was right, she was sure the remains found were his, she was right, she looks at the facial reconstruction and emotes that this is not the face of the killer - well, with the last she might be right but she might be wrong.  The last theory is bad history.  She is passionate about her subject, but I cannot compare her to a dedicated historian insofar as she has crossed the line between what she believes to be true and what she can demonstrate to be true.  There are all sorts of reasons why people or institutions don't wish to acknowledge a particular truth, and sometimes it isn't necessarily for a bad reason, but there is just too much emotional investment in believing something different.  

Yes, the look of horror on her face when the skeleton was revealed with its scoliosis was a thing to behold. It seemed like her bubble had burst!
I wonder what would have happened if it was shown that the skeleton was NOT Richard's.... the mind boggles :-)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 09, 2013, 09:24:04 AM
Quote
Both rulers died violently at the hands of their own people.

I don't think there is a real parallel between the two rulers in this respect.  Richard III was killed by the forces of a contender for the throne - not a spontaneous uprising of his own people.


I do think it's a parallel, although certainly not an exact one, as you point out.  (This is actually the kind of discussion I hoped we could get going on this topic.)

However, both Richard and Nicholas were in very precarious situations regarding the stability of their reigns, albeit for different reasons.  And they shared the problem that this precariousness put a particular premium on their each stepping carefully.  Rulers can make a slew of missteps in settled times, and the prestige of their office and the inherent stability of the underlying machinery of government can carry them through it.  In unsettled times, placing more steps adroitly becomes critical.

Richard failed to find a way to reach an accord with competing dynastic claims, something which is difficult but has nevertheless been accomplished by adroit rulers on occasion.  (in fact, Henry VII, who seized the throne from Richard, solved the problem with a politic marriage.  And Henry's granddaughter Elizabeth solved a dynastic and a boundary dispute with an adroit designation of a successor in the person of James I/VI.)  Nicholas managed successively to alienate his nobility, the Church, his ministers, and finally his military commanders.  When the dust of those collapsed columns of autocracy settled, Nicholas found that the one column on which he put his foremost and rather mystical trust -- the peasantry -- had been a illusion all along.


Quote
Richard's death marked the end of the Middle Ages.

Only if you're in England - most modern historians make a far less precise distinction though the 'early modern' period is generally dated from the fall of Constantinople in 1453.  But one could argue for earlier dating in, for example, Italy or Portugal.

True.  And I don't mean to suggest that either man brought an end to an era, which is why I said only that they marked an end.  I do think each of their reigns each came at or near the ends of periods throughout which the way the world saw itself had been shifting onto a new plateau.  Monarchy as a form of government had been under attack since 1789, with each decade bringing more and more chiseling at its foundations.  And, as you point out, the advent of the modern area is somewhat amorphous in date, and varies from place to place.  But, by any measure, it coincided generally with Richard's life and reign.  Certainly after Richard the reason for and the way by which kings went to war changed, with war -- even dynastic war -- becoming more "corporate" and less personal.

Did Richard cause that shift?  No.  Did his death coincide with that shift?  I think so.  From the end of the ancient era (which I'm marking here as the first sack of Rome in 410) up to the time of Richard, at least 8 European kings were killed on the battlefield; after Richard only 2.  And both of those deaths (James IV of Scotland in 1513 and Charles XII of Sweden in 1718) were in national wars of conquest or alliance, not personal wars of dynastic ambition.  And by Charles' time, a king's taking to the field of battle had become an anomaly, not a commonplace.  The purpose and nature of warfare had shifted, with fewer kings taking the field and for different reasons, as the process of consolidating principalities into kingdoms was coming to an end (except most notably in Germany, where even there consolidation under the Hohenzollerns proceeded by a very different means than the personal battles of an earlier age).  
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 09, 2013, 11:02:37 AM
Some consider the Middle Ages running from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the New World.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 09, 2013, 12:17:16 PM
I think we're all in the same ballpark here:  the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Richard's death in 1485, Columbus arriving in the New World in 1492.  There is a consensus among most historians that the Middle Ages petered out in the second half of the fifteenth century.

Of course, there are outliers.  I've even seen arguments that the Middle Ages ended with the establishment of modern banking principles in Renaissance Italy in the 14th century, which began the transition from feudal-based economic systems to commerce-based economic systems.

But I think it all adds up to the same -- Richard lived in an age when, over the space of a relatively few decades, Europe was beginning to play on a world stage with Portuguese and Spanish sea exploration getting underway, with the fall of Constantinople signaling a shift from the eastern Mediterranean to northern Europe as the set for the next act in the story of western history, with wars becoming less dynastic and more national in character, with mercantile outlooks replacing feudal ones.

I should have said that Richard's death coincided with the end of the Middle Ages instead of marked it, as "marked" apparently implies a causality that I did not intend to imply.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on February 09, 2013, 02:19:13 PM
Here's a link to the press conference at the U of L, bottom of the page. http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/
The Romanovs and Richard III found in our lifetimes, who'd a thunk!
We do live in interesting times.
T
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 09, 2013, 03:00:01 PM
I think his death marked the end of the Middle Ages in England, and it is a fairly clear line of demarcation. I'll come back to that in a second.

Another parallel with the Romanovs? The Pretenders that emerged after the mysterious disappearance of several characters in the Ricardian drama. There were impersonators of Richard, Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick and several others. Perkin Warbeck was actually supported in his pretensions by Margaret Duchess of Burgundy, the sister of Richard and Edward IV.

As with the Bolsheviks, the Tudors maintained a lively interest in expunging the previous dynasty/rulers. As late as 1540, the Henrician government executed Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, Richard's niece. Henry VII had executed her brother, and basically shut the Wydevilles, his wife's relatives on her mother's side, out of power.

It is true that the Renaissance was in full swing in Italy, and to some extent had made inroads in France. But I would argue that a true European Renaissance could only begin with the arrival of the Reformation and the subsequent dissolution of the medieval polity. This would include the growing influence of Macchiavelli's writings, and the Renaissance education afforded both Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon during their childhoods.

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 09, 2013, 03:11:52 PM
I was just watching a History Channel show on the Medieval Era, and it gave yet another marker for the end of the Middle Ages:  the advent of artillery in the 15th century.  Since artillery in one form or another had been around far longer, I did a little digging to see what they might mean.  It turns out that between 1420 and 1430 a large step was taken forward in artillery technology that enabled cannon for the first time to penetrate the walls of castles and fortresses -- a step first exploited by the English, French, and Burgundians.  So the decline of the utility of castles in warfare is another possible marker in a move away from the Middle Ages.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 09, 2013, 06:33:44 PM

It is true that the Renaissance was in full swing in Italy, and to some extent had made inroads in France. But I would argue that a true European Renaissance could only begin with the arrival of the Reformation and the subsequent dissolution of the medieval polity. This would include the growing influence of Macchiavelli's writings, and the Renaissance education afforded both Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon during their childhoods.



Some date the arrival of the Renaissance in England to the activities of Henry V's brother, Humphrey of Gloucester, a patron of Italian humanists - and posthumous founder, of course, of the Bodleian Library, which is built on his collection.

No-one's mentioned the role of the printing press and spread of vernacular publishing in bringing the end of the "Middle Ages", though I guess that's implicit in discussion of the Reformation....

(Encouragement of printing, of course, being one of the virtues emphasised by Richard III's defenders). 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 09, 2013, 06:44:12 PM
The burial arguement is pretty much window dressing.
As is the case with any exhumation the licence clearly states the body should be reinterred as near to the place it originally rested I believe it specifies the Cathedral in Leicester or somewhere else appropriate at the discretion of the University of Leicester.
As to York Minster - it is has said further that it doesn't want to involve itself in an arguement between cathedrals. If there was a legal challenge at a later date it might be drawn further on the matter.
The arguement is a bit odd given both cathedrals's are now Anglican and Richard III was a Roman Catholic.
I find the row a bit unseemly and pointless - the exhumation and dna analysis give us fresh insight into Richard and suggest that tudor 'myth' about his appearance might have just been exageration of a slight deformity rather than completely made up- the burial row is about city's competing for tourists and their cash nothing more.
As I am from York i have no doubt many people believe Richard to be worthy of some recognition as a 'local' boy but the basis for the arguement is on the whole historically inaccurate and spurious.


I'm can't say I find the 'Roman Catholic' argument particularly convincing insofar as there was hardly a choice at the time.  And that sort of logic would dictate the reburying of all those monarchs who were Roman Catholics, which seems just daft, even in the case of Mary Tudor.  While I agree there probably is a tourist-attraction competition going on, there does also seem to be a sentimental aspect, emanating from the Richard III society, which appears to feel that Richard was particularly associated with the city of York and would possibly have wished to be buried there.

It's sentimental (I don't mean this in a scathing sense, but as a reference to peoples' feelings) and it's also political. There is an element in this campaign of emphasising the fact that Richard III was a King who encouraged the development of the North of England - and of underscoring too the fact that England is more than London, and several monarchs elected to be buried in significant places outside the capital (e.g. Henry IV).
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 09, 2013, 07:11:12 PM

I myself grew irritated with the Philippa Langley emotings but not because of her feelings in themselves, which were understandable in view of the heavy personal investment she had in the identification of the remains, but because of the intense television dwelling on this as it made for a more exciting programme, and because the amount of personal investment in a particular theory makes for bad history.  One could tell, for example, that Philippa Langley was genuinely shocked that the skeleton of Richard III had clear spinal scoliosis, thus suggesting that the 'myth' of Richard's deformity was not in fact an absolute myth, but nevertheless cut into her view that the Tudors had invented everything about Richard III.  To a significant extent, her historical perspective is now based on emotion in this particular area, and by placing her as the focal point of the documentary, this emotion starts to validate for the watchers theories that have no basis in historical fact - that is, that Richard III was innocent of all the crimes of which he was accused.  There are all sorts of reasons why people or institutions don't wish to acknowledge a particular truth, and sometimes it isn't necessarily for a bad reason, but there is just too much emotional investment in believing something different.  

Unfortunately, in this case, it appears that the "emotional" - or irrational - investment is certainly not limited to Richard's defenders. This article http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/02/discovery-richard-iii-propaganda-war, for example, written by an academic, loudly proclaims the author's own emotional response to the King's reconstructed face, and is riddled with factual errors (the National Portrait Gallery's picture of Richard, for example, which he says the Society condemns as a propaganda fake, is described as "romantic" on the Richard III Society's own website, and yet this is the one which resembles the reconstruction. The one which has been tampered with - as  a matter of conservation record - is the Society of Manuscripts' meaner-looking image.) This is a shabby article, a knee-jerk reaction prompted by someone apparently afraid to relinquish his own views and just as keen to claim - without evidential basis - that the "Tudor" image of Richard III had been vindicated by the latest discovery.  

Everyone who studies history goes into it through intense attraction to some topic or other, whether that includes emotional attachment to a particular character or not. There is a lot of unwarranted snootiness from "academics" towards the involvement of "amateurs" whose perspective may be as valid as their own. We can see that Philippa Langley was shaken to discover that Richard had scoliosis. It's certain he wasn't a "hunchback", nor did he have a withered arm, but that didn't stop supposedly dispasionate "academics" from rushing into print to proclaim that the Tudors were right all along.  
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 09, 2013, 07:43:48 PM
I think a very good case can be made for the Renaissance being tied to the invention of the printing press, in much the same way that I am sure future historians will date whatever age we have currently entered (the Information Age lacks the romance of "Renaissance", but there you go) to the mass use of computers. Alan Turing may attain the stature of a Leonardo. It bred greater literacy and cultural cross-pollination, as well as fostering the vernacular, as books became available to common folk. The book was such an ideal method to transmit information that it wasn't improved upon until the 20th century, a long run.

I would argue that at least one of the transitions was the arrival of the Black Death around 1349, followed by subsequent waves for the rest of the century. It decimated huge populations, creating social unrest and even mobility, as well as significantly eroding faith in the Old Church (Wycliffe and Lollards, take a bow). I'm not sure you can overestimate the impact --- 3 out of 4 Frenchmen died in a matter of decades. No segment of medieval society could avoid its devastating impact.

Richard, to me, is the last medieval king. His goals and life would have been understood by his Plantagenet and Angevin ancestors, whereas I think the politics of Tudor England would have seemed incomprehensible.

And he should certainly be given burial in a Roman Catholic Church. I don't suppose the Queen could be convinced to return Westminster Abbey to the original owners?

No. I didn't think so. (But if you think Mary Tudor doesn't resent the fact that she is lying in a Protestant chuch, you have never studied her. The last time I was at her tomb, I could distinctly hear the sound of someone spinning underneath the effigy. I doubt Mary Stuart is best pleased, either.)

Good God, Janet, I just read the article from History Today. What is up Sean Lang's nose? He has never seen such a ruthless face??? Really? Go take a look at Margaret Thatcher around 1979 and get back to me

Simon
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Petr on February 09, 2013, 08:55:27 PM
As an interesting aside on Richard III,  I just saw an interesting program courtesy of You Tube. It was a 2004 show by Tony Robinson entitiled Britain's Real Monarch (for those of you unfamiliar with him he's an interesting chap who does an English version of History's Detective) on the possibilty that Edward IV was, in fact, illegitimate, thereby invalidating the claim of the Tudors (and their descendants) to the crown. The proof seems to hinge on the fact that Edward's Father was off in France fighting about the time he was supposed to have been conceived. If correct, this would mean that the throne would, in fact, revert to the Plantagenents. But, you might think, that Richard III was the last of that line and it ended on Bosworth Field. Apparently not. It appears there is a line of descendents through the Hastings family and the Earl of Loudon and, mirabile dictu, a descendent lives on in Australia, Michael Hastings. Actually a regular bloke who believes that Australia should be a Republic and sever its ties to England.

Here are the arguments from Wikipedia:

" In a 2004 television documentary it was revealed that records discovered in the archives of Rouen Cathedral indicate that from 14 July to 21 August 1441 (the five-week period in which Edward is likely to have been conceived) Edward's supposed father was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered at the cathedral for his safety. No evidence has survived which indicates that Edward was born prematurely. The programme also drew attention to the fact that the christening celebration of Edmund, Earl of Rutland, the second son of Richard and Cecily, was a lavish affair at the cathedral, whereas the christening of Edward, the firstborn, was low key, and in a side chapel. The programme concludes that Edward was illegitimate. For more details see the TV programme Britain's Real Monarch.

Counter-arguments to this theory are that the Duke of York could have returned to Rouen from Pontoise, because there was a road in English hands. The absence of evidence does not mean that Edward was not born prematurely. Because of high infant mortality, baptisms were often performed quickly, and Cecily had already had children who had died young. Richard, Duke of York, did not contest his paternity, and Edward IV could in any case claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest, whether he was a legitimate child or not. Even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim is via an illegitimate line, it is no weaker than that of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485."

       
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 09, 2013, 10:49:13 PM
Richard, to me, is the last medieval king. His goals and life would have been understood by his Plantagenet and Angevin ancestors, whereas I think the politics of Tudor England would have seemed incomprehensible.

History seems to move in fits and starts, with long periods of relative stability and more compressed periods of change, where evolution speeds up on many fronts at once.

The century and a half preceding Richard's death was one of those periods of rapid change across almost all the fronts of human life.  I don't think anyone can put an exact date on the transition from the medieval world to the modern world.  But the change was certainly nearing its conclusion by the time of Richard's death.  The Italian Renaissance got underway around 1330-50, and humanism began to eat away at medieval theology as a framework for understanding man and his place in the world.  Banking created a means for consolidating and redirecting capital to build new forms of wealth beyond land-owning.  The Black Death and the ensuing shortage of labor broke down the feudal manor system as the economic engine that fed Europe, and the concentration of people into urban centers became more feasible.  Sea exploration revealed a larger and more varied world than Europeans had ever imagined.  New technologies such as artillery and the printing press changed the face of war, brought life out from behind and around castle walls. and made ideas a common currency among larger groups of society.  The great period of nation building drew to a close in much of Europe, including England, France, Spain, Austria, Prussia, and Poland.  This was tied to the emergence of powerful central monarchies whose rulers could challenge and then supplant the power of the Catholic Church in secular affairs.

I think Louis Charles has hit on one of the key ways to tell whether a person lived at a point of transition:  could he have lived the same life a hundred years earlier as a hundred years later.  If not, his life came near the end of one era and the start of another.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 10, 2013, 04:58:39 AM
Though Charles XII was the last king to be killed in battle, he was by no means the last ruler . The most recent I have found is Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Brunswick (brother of Caroline of Brunswick!), who was killed at Quatre Bras in 1815. His father had earlier been killed in the 1806 campaign, albeit commanding Prussians rather than Brunwickers. Rulers continued acting as military commanders for another century. The three armies at Solferino in 1859 were commanded by Franz Josef of Austria, Victor Emmanuel of Sardinia and Napoleon III of France. Wilhelm I of Prussia was a bit old for commanding armies in the Franco-Prussian War, so his son the future Friedrich III, was the Prussian commander. On the German side in the First World War, three royal heirs were army commanders; Wilhelm of Prussia, Rupprecht of Bavaria, and Albrecht of Wurttemburg.

As to Tony Robinson's claims about Edward IV's paternity, even if the Duke and Duchess of York were apart for the full five weeks, there is nothing, medically speaking, to prevent Edward having been either premature, or, alternatively, a late arrival. It just happens that the dates for an amorous reunion after the Duke's triumph, followed by a birth three weeks early, fit my arrival eight months and one week after my parents' wedding almost to the day. Some might argue that Edward was such a splendid physical specimen that he could not have been born prematurely, but we might draw a parallel with Dimitri Pavlovich, who was born two months early, was tall, handsome and very athletic, but died at 50. Edward seems to have run out of steam in his thirties and died at 40.

Incidentally, anyone looking at me and my father together could never doubt my paternity!

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 10, 2013, 06:12:54 AM
Though Charles XII was the last king to be killed in battle, he was by no means the last ruler.

That's interesting.  I had not considered rulers in making my point.

My post the other day sent me off in search of a date on which dynastic wars ended in Europe.  The last one of which I know was the War of the Austrian Succession from 1740-48.  I suspect, however, I'm forgetting some.

But, whether it be kings or lesser rulers who were killed in battle after Richard III, I cannot find any who were killed in dynastic wars as opposed to wars of expansion, defense, or alliance.  Is there something I'm overlooking?

The reason the point seems relevant to me is that dynastic wars in which claimants took personal part seem to me to have been part of the process of nation building that began to wind down around the time that other changes mentioned in an earlier post were bringing the Middle Ages to an end.  The later dynastic wars seem to have involved an uncontested ruler of an established state asserting dynastic rights to rule another established state whose ruling line had died out or was in dispute.  As such, they were not only wars between competing dynasts, but wars between nations.  Consequently, they were less personal than wars of the Middle Ages, as kings did not need to take the field personally because there was a nation state to do it as their proxy.

Also, I think there is a distinction between a ruler going into the field to command an army (which is what Napoleon, Franz Josef, Victor Emmanuel, et al. did) and personally taking part in the battle.  As far as I know, Charles XII of Sweden was the last ruler to be killed in a trench at the leading edge of battle or in a similar circumstance.

But I'm also beginning to wonder if I've missed some (I'm no military historian) . . . or if the point I first raised is really even all that relevant.

But sorting this out is what a history forum is all about.



Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 10, 2013, 01:07:44 PM
I don't think you've missed any dynastic struggles that ended in death, but there is always Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the 18th century struggles he took part in to restore the Stuarts to the throne. There was an Old Pretender (James II) and a Young Pretender (his son, whose name escapes me and which I am too lazy to get up and find --- wait a minute, James III? I think that's right) and then the somewhat feckless Charles. But there was the Battle of Culloden. Given that the Act of Union was in place, it did take place on UK soil, and it was dynastic. There was also a sort of dynastic struggle between James II and the Duke of Monmouth, Charles II's bastard, as well as the struggle that unseated James himself in the 1688 Glorious Revolution. It wound up replacing James with his daughters, Mary II and Anne, but I wouldn't call it exactly a dynastic struggle, really more between the King and Parliament. I have always thought that James was quite prudent in decamping to the continent, given what had happened to his father in similar circumstances.
Something else that I think Richard III and Nicholas II (and his entire family) have in common is an indefinable quality --- charisma. Some people do, for whatever reason --- Henry VII did not, Richard did. There is something that draws people to defend him four centuries after his death, and as for the Romanovs, well, just look at this board. There are certain historical figures (usually, but not always, those who come to unpleasant ends) that attract what with no disrespect might be called "groupies". Marie Antoinette is one, though Louis XVI is not. Catherine of Aragon, but not really Catherine Howard. Thomas More, but not John Fisher. Anyone else have any candidates? (I have several in whom I maintain a lively personal interest, to judge by my bookshelves --- all of the Mitford sisters, for example).

Richard III has charisma in spades.

Simon
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 10, 2013, 01:50:25 PM

Good God, Janet, I just read the article from History Today. What is up Sean Lang's nose? He has never seen such a ruthless face??? Really? Go take a look at Margaret Thatcher around 1979 and get back to me

Simon

:-D

Equally weird is his contention that post-mortem abuse of his corpse indicates that Richard was unpopular - as if he had any clear evidence that it was carried out by an enraged citizen rather than a follower of Henry Tudor. This a perfect case of a personal belief which is not validated by evidence.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 10, 2013, 01:55:32 PM
That struck me as well. I was really surprised it received the status of an article. The thing read more like a dotty letter to the editor.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 10, 2013, 02:01:21 PM

 The later dynastic wars seem to have involved an uncontested ruler of an established state asserting dynastic rights to rule another established state whose ruling line had died out or was in dispute.  As such, they were not only wars between competing dynasts, but wars between nations.  Consequently, they were less personal than wars of the Middle Ages, as kings did not need to take the field personally because there was a nation state to do it as their proxy



By this token, the wars which Henry VI - and Richard's father - prosecuted in France were the epitome of transitional ones, as there was certainly a dynastic element involving the crown of France, which had been going on for centuries, and was more than simply the claim of one nation for another nation's throne - but there was a national one too, marked by the emergence of figures like Joan of Arc.

Conversely, until Cromwell's day, Britain still had no standing army, an important marker to me of the emergence of a national state where loyalty to the King - or his rivals - is secondary to loyalty to the country.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 10, 2013, 02:06:43 PM

Something else that I think Richard III and Nicholas II (and his entire family) have in common is an indefinable quality --- charisma. Some people do, for whatever reason --- Henry VII did not, Richard did. There is something that draws people to defend him four centuries after his death, and as for the Romanovs, well, just look at this board. There are certain historical figures (usually, but not always, those who come to unpleasant ends) that attract what with no disrespect might be called "groupies". Marie Antoinette is one, though Louis XVI is not. Catherine of Aragon, but not really Catherine Howard. Thomas More, but not John Fisher. Anyone else have any candidates?

Simon

The Bronte sisters. Possibly Queen Victoria. Bonnie Prince Charlie, who you mention above?

Dying young is usually a good trigger, as much as violent death. "Underdogs" have a certain appeal - I am always drawn to characters who have a bad reputation and want to look at the opposite side...:-) Some of these people are not necessarily well-known. I have actually spotted a few articles about this phenomenon in Richard's context, so people do notice it. 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 10, 2013, 02:13:03 PM
God - I almost forgot - Lord Byron!

This is another character who attracts a lot of female historians and scathing comments from male ones about romantic feelings. Yet one of his most obsessive female historians - Doris Langley Moore - unearthed and analysed a vast body of invaluable evidence about his financial accounts which tells a lot about his life (as per another more academic female historian, Lucy Maynard Salmon, whose contention was that a topic could not be understood without attention to the "laundry lists" and details of daily life).

This goes back to my point about the origin of historical study being similar whoever you are....
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 10, 2013, 02:56:07 PM
Surely the French wars of Henry V aren't dynastic in any real sense. I think Shakespeare gets it exactly right when he has the Church cook up an unspeakable speech in the play about Salic Law, and how Henry therefore has an uncontested claim to the throne (virtually unplayable, and I once played the character who delivers it, so take it from me). It's all very nice, but surely Henry was off to the wars without it --- you have a French king sliding into bouts of insanity, and France resembles the pension fund of the Teamsters Union --- it's just SITTING there, waiting to be scooped up. I think the last time a credible dynastic reason could be advanced was by John, and it was barely credible even then. The York claim to the throne was about as good as the Lancaster claim, which is to say not very. Once Richard II is deposed it's more like "button, button, who's got the button?"

Simon
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 10, 2013, 03:52:52 PM

Richard, to me, is the last medieval king. His goals and life would have been understood by his Plantagenet and Angevin ancestors, whereas I think the politics of Tudor England would have seemed incomprehensible.



I haven't asked this, and should - what do YOU think his goals and aims actually were?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 10, 2013, 10:37:21 PM
Richard III has charisma in spades.

Was Richard III really charismatic, or rather fascinating?

Among charismatic leaders I would list Abraham Lincoln, Elizabeth I, Napoleon, Cyrus the Great, Catherine II, Adolf Hitler.  Among fascinating, but not charismatic, leaders I would list Caesar Augustus, Ivan III, Ivan IV, Peter I, Louis XIV, Henry VIII, Frederick the Great, Josef Stalin.

My sense is that Richard would fit more comfortably in the second group.

All charismatic leaders are fascinating.  Not all fascinating leaders are charismatic.

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 11, 2013, 04:18:06 AM
'My post the other day sent me off in search of a date on which dynastic wars ended in Europe.  The last one of which I know was the War of the Austrian Succession from 1740-48.'

The last was a brief War of the Bavarian Succession in 1778-79. But the various 18th century succession wars didn't really involve dynastic disputes. they were rather a case of the major European powers seeking to take advantage of the lack of an obvious successor in the particular country to put their man on a strategically important throne.

I have to admit being drawn to Richard III on the basis of an instinctive sympathy for the underdog.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Maria the Beautiful on February 11, 2013, 05:45:57 AM
On the subject of charisma - today's surprising news  of Pope Benedict's resignation made me think of the enormous charisma of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II that was recognized by all faiths throughout the world.    Note:   Discussion of the Pope's resignation is for another thread or maybe another forum altogether.   I don't want to be the cause of going too off-topic here.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 11, 2013, 01:33:22 PM

I myself grew irritated with the Philippa Langley emotings but not because of her feelings in themselves, which were understandable in view of the heavy personal investment she had in the identification of the remains, but because of the intense television dwelling on this as it made for a more exciting programme, and because the amount of personal investment in a particular theory makes for bad history.  One could tell, for example, that Philippa Langley was genuinely shocked that the skeleton of Richard III had clear spinal scoliosis, thus suggesting that the 'myth' of Richard's deformity was not in fact an absolute myth, but nevertheless cut into her view that the Tudors had invented everything about Richard III.  To a significant extent, her historical perspective is now based on emotion in this particular area, and by placing her as the focal point of the documentary, this emotion starts to validate for the watchers theories that have no basis in historical fact - that is, that Richard III was innocent of all the crimes of which he was accused.  There are all sorts of reasons why people or institutions don't wish to acknowledge a particular truth, and sometimes it isn't necessarily for a bad reason, but there is just too much emotional investment in believing something different.  

Unfortunately, in this case, it appears that the "emotional" - or irrational - investment is certainly not limited to Richard's defenders. This article http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/02/discovery-richard-iii-propaganda-war, for example, written by an academic, loudly proclaims the author's own emotional response to the King's reconstructed face, and is riddled with factual errors (the National Portrait Gallery's picture of Richard, for example, which he says the Society condemns as a propaganda fake, is described as "romantic" on the Richard III Society's own website, and yet this is the one which resembles the reconstruction. The one which has been tampered with - as  a matter of conservation record - is the Society of Manuscripts' meaner-looking image.) This is a shabby article, a knee-jerk reaction prompted by someone apparently afraid to relinquish his own views and just as keen to claim - without evidential basis - that the "Tudor" image of Richard III had been vindicated by the latest discovery.  

Everyone who studies history goes into it through intense attraction to some topic or other, whether that includes emotional attachment to a particular character or not. There is a lot of unwarranted snootiness from "academics" towards the involvement of "amateurs" whose perspective may be as valid as their own. We can see that Philippa Langley was shaken to discover that Richard had scoliosis. It's certain he wasn't a "hunchback", nor did he have a withered arm, but that didn't stop supposedly dispasionate "academics" from rushing into print to proclaim that the Tudors were right all along.  

Further to my ruminations on this theme, I came across another article today which seems to touch on many of the same themes: the scorn of the professional historian for the "amateur"; the scorn of the male historian for women he perceives to have a romantic obsession with a long-dead king, and the way this can be used to see off a challenge to his interpretation of evidence: -

http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/all-the-world-to-nothing/

Interesting, I thought - particularly since some of the best-known revisionist works on Richard have been by men. Nearly all of them, in fact. As far as I can see, Paul Murray Kendal's is still seen by many as the definitive biography (including by some readers unsympathetic to Richard who find Ross's book far too dry), though for a sympathetic take on Richard I'd choose something more recent with less of a reputation for hagiography.

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 11, 2013, 05:41:41 PM
The problem is that the most recent biographies are by Michael Hix, and they're terrible. I slogged through his take on Richard in two separate books, and of course he comes down rather heavily in the Richard as Villain camp. But his methodology of presenting evidence is shoddy. He also wrote a "biography" of Anne Neville that is hilarious in a sad kind of way. Anne left nothing behind, so he reconstructs what she must have been doing within what is obviously a preconceived notion of her motives.

And I am still thinking about the answer to your question above, Janet.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 12, 2013, 02:34:46 AM
Absolutely agree with you with regards to the Hicks "biography" Simon although it does explain such things as degrees of kinship requiring dispensation prior to marriage ....oh and in the intro he kindly informs us that" Anne was a woman"....
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 12, 2013, 06:01:10 AM
oh and in the intro he kindly informs us that" Anne was a woman"....

Well, I've met a couple of Glendas for whom the explanation would have been helpful.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 12, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
I hear that Ms Langley is going to unveil her design for Richard's tomb tonight at midnight ( Uk time). I will link pics when I see them.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 12, 2013, 03:53:28 PM
I look forward to seeing them.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 13, 2013, 02:13:27 AM
Well, here it is;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21427369 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21427369)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 13, 2013, 03:00:22 AM
Restrained and tasteful - one wishes such advisers had been at hand when Queen Victoria was approving the designs for the Albert Memorial.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 13, 2013, 03:52:32 AM
Its quite lovely isn't it?
I was imagining unicorns and fluffy kittens for some reason but I think Ms. Langley has done herself proud :-)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 13, 2013, 05:45:53 AM
Just found these close ups.
http://www.lostincastles.com/tomb-gallery/ (http://www.lostincastles.com/tomb-gallery/)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 13, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
Its quite lovely isn't it?
I was imagining unicorns and fluffy kittens for some reason but I think Ms. Langley has done herself proud :-)

Did she actually design it? Most of the stories are saying "commissioned" on behalf of the Richard III Society, but I don't know if that means she asked someone else to design it, or to produce it to her designs?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 13, 2013, 04:23:53 PM
Absolutely agree with you with regards to the Hicks "biography" Simon although it does explain such things as degrees of kinship requiring dispensation prior to marriage ....oh and in the intro he kindly informs us that" Anne was a woman"....

Is this the writer who suggested that their marriage was incestuous because of the Clarence/Isobel marriage?
I have never read anywhere else that brothers are forbidden to marry sisters. I had thought that kinship was conferred by marriage from one person to their in-laws but not further to include their siblings as relations of their in-laws (so, to put it more clearly, had Anne stayed single and married Clarence after Isobel's death, this would have been incestuous, but there was no bar on her marrying Clarence's brother at any point). Am I wrong here?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 13, 2013, 04:25:42 PM

And I am still thinking about the answer to your question above, Janet.

Cool - look forward to hearing your thoughts on his motivation and all. (and the thoughts of anyone else who wants to weigh in too!)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Paul on February 13, 2013, 07:38:08 PM
 Is this the writer who suggested that their marriage was incestuous because of the Clarence/Isobel marriage?
I have never read anywhere else that brothers are forbidden to marry sisters. I had thought that kinship was conferred by marriage from one person to their in-laws but not further to include their siblings as relations of their in-laws (so, to put it more clearly, had Anne stayed single and married Clarence after Isobel's death, this would have been incestuous, but there was no bar on her marrying Clarence's brother at any point). Am I wrong here?
[/quote]

Doubtful, in the incest department. There are too many instances of brothers from one family marrying sisters from another family for this to have been the case.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 14, 2013, 02:21:59 AM
Its quite lovely isn't it?
I was imagining unicorns and fluffy kittens for some reason but I think Ms. Langley has done herself proud :-)

Did she actually design it? Most of the stories are saying "commissioned" on behalf of the Richard III Society, but I don't know if that means she asked someone else to design it, or to produce it to her designs?

I saw one interview where she said that she had designed the tomb and that the society were very positive about it. This was on the TV before the final announcement of the findings. I also have read in other places that she commissioned her design working with the Richard III society. If I get to the bottom of it I will let you know.

Edited to add;
I have spent time looking online and it DOES state commissioned everywhere.
I wonder wether Ms Langley "suggested" some or all of the design?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 14, 2013, 02:23:42 AM
Absolutely agree with you with regards to the Hicks "biography" Simon although it does explain such things as degrees of kinship requiring dispensation prior to marriage ....oh and in the intro he kindly informs us that" Anne was a woman"....

Is this the writer who suggested that their marriage was incestuous because of the Clarence/Isobel marriage?
I have never read anywhere else that brothers are forbidden to marry sisters. I had thought that kinship was conferred by marriage from one person to their in-laws but not further to include their siblings as relations of their in-laws (so, to put it more clearly, had Anne stayed single and married Clarence after Isobel's death, this would have been incestuous, but there was no bar on her marrying Clarence's brother at any point). Am I wrong here?

Its been a while since I read it but I will revisit it again today and let you know....its a bit mind numbing to say the least :-)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 14, 2013, 09:42:12 AM
Here goes :-)

Canon law in the 15th century was a moral code strictly enforced by the church. It was a minefield, forbidding marriage amongst relations whom "we would scarcely acknowledge today".
( Hicks ).

- KINSHIP   -   Consanguineous - blood relatives who shared a common ancestor
                -   Affinial - whereby marriage or sexual intercourse that made relatives out of in laws.

Consanguinity and Affinity were expressed as degrees. Marriage between partners within four degrees of kinship were incestuous and banned.
Royalty and aristocracy frequently inter married with kin in which case a Papal Bull would be requested and dispensed. Frequently, they did not wait for the dispensation but married in the expectation of the Bull.
According to HICKS;
Impediments to Richard and Anne's marriage were;
- First cousins once removed ( as indeed were Clarence and Isabel Neville ).
- A distant tie created by Anne's first marriage - Edward of Lancaster was a distant cousin to them both.
- Anne and Richard were brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In the 15th century view they were brother and sister.
A dispensation was applied for and approved on 22nd April 1472. Hicks claims that this was insufficient to validate the marriage and according to him " no other dispensation was ever secured".
No date for the wedding recorded but it is likely that it took place in late spring/early summer 1472.
None of Richard's contemporary critics queried this marriage

The Richard III Society refutes the claim that Isabel and Anne could not legally marry two brothers whereby the first marriage would set up the impediment of Affinity to the second.
Interestingly, Clarence complained that the marriage was effected by "force and fear"- thus making it null and void.
(You can follow this argument by googling Richard III society).




Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 14, 2013, 09:52:16 AM
Going a bit off topic ( again). Leicester quite fancy having a root around and having a look for Wolsey's remains now;
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Discovery-prompts-calls-remains/story-18125709-detail/story.html#axzz2KtAkFzsp (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Discovery-prompts-calls-remains/story-18125709-detail/story.html#axzz2KtAkFzsp).
I've also heard that there is some interest in exhuming Richard of Eastwell and comparing DNA with Richard III.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/2013/february/7/richard_iii.aspx (http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/2013/february/7/richard_iii.aspx)

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 14, 2013, 11:12:53 AM
The other royal marriages between two brothers and two sisters that I can think of off the top of my head was between John of Gaunt and Edmund, Duke of York, sons of Edward III, and the two daughters of Pedro the Cruel of Castile.

Philip II of Spain and his sister married a brother and sister from the Portuguese royal family - the two sets were also double first cousins!

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 14, 2013, 12:22:06 PM
The other royal marriages between two brothers and two sisters that I can think of off the top of my head was between John of Gaunt and Edmund, Duke of York, sons of Edward III, and the two daughters of Pedro the Cruel of Castile.

Philip II of Spain and his sister married a brother and sister from the Portuguese royal family - the two sets were also double first cousins!

Ann

Portuguese royal marriages were highly incestuous well into the nineteenth-century, uncle-niece pairings being especially popular :-).

Philip's grandmother Juana and her brother also married (Habsburg) siblings.

I think Michael Hick's argument is that Richard and Anne ought to have obtained a dispensation, but no-one else seems to agree that they were siblings by affinity anyway. I have no doubt that if they were Clarence would have made use of the fact when he wanted the marriage declared void.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 14, 2013, 12:25:16 PM

Interestingly, Clarence complained that the marriage was effected by "force and fear"- thus making it null and void.
(You can follow this argument by googling Richard III society).






The "force" presumably being the removal of Anne from his own guardianship....thank you for all this material - I will check out Hicks's books in full soon. (Most interested though in his book on Clarence, as I assume it moves him beyond the stereotyped picture of the bad guy who kept changing sides!)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 14, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
The fact that the marriage was not challenged at the time, and a dispensation granted in the event of one by the legitimate authority to do so does not seem to interest Mr. Hicks. It didn't interest Henry VIII almost fifty years later, but he was in a better position to rewrite history.

Back to charisma; at least part of it is charm, which Hitler certainly did not have (most people in the inner circle were bored by him in social situations. It's astonishing how "charming" you can find a person who has literal power of life and death over you, though), Richard has kept legions of people interested enough to devote years to proving his innocence on the basis of what they assume was his character: loyal, brave, romantic (there is a cottage industry hellbent for leather on making the Neville marriage a love match. Which I hope it was, but let's face it . . .) Marie Antoinette has it as well, although Andre Castelot once wrote that he doubted you could find a thousand Frenchmen in 1793 who shared the current devotion to the Queen). Part of the charisma may stem from a sentimental transformation of the victim --- and it is usually a victim --- into a figure that would have been unrecognizable to his/her contemporaries --- although in Richard's case, he really was beloved in the North, and they were loyal enough to York to participate in more than one uprising.

I am writing this while occasionally gazing upon my class taking a makeup examination. 24 out of 26 failed the first go-round, with the two survivors getting "A". This allowed me to point out to the rest that they were screwed. Clearly I had taught the material. To which one of them cheerfully replied, "Yes, but not in a way we understood!"

The story of my life.

Simon
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 14, 2013, 12:37:02 PM
Dear Janet,

I think the position of the King was transformed under the Tudors into a far more centralized monarchy than any medieval monarch would have known, thanks to the efforts of Wolsey, Cromwell and Cecil (Burghley). There is the Reformation; I doubt that any Plantagent could have conceived making the church essentially an arm of the state. There is the relationship of Richard to the nobility, who are still exercising a great deal of power right up until Bosworth --- and then spend the next 80 or 90 years having the daylights kicked out of them by Henry VII, VIII and Elizabeth, along with the rise of a powerful middle class whose interests would only have been nascent to Richard. He simply wasn't a Londoner, and by the Tudors, London was the center of royal power. I really doubt that Richard ever conceived that only London could have been that center, or he wouldn't have been so devoted to northern interests.
There are similarities --- both Richard and the Tudors had to deal with Scottish insurgency, and a few other things, but on the whole, I think you can safely use the image of the last Plantagenet king staggering around a battlefield calling for a horse as the death knell of the traditional medieval monarchy.

Simon
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 14, 2013, 12:41:43 PM
-- although in Richard's case, he really was beloved in the North, and they were loyal enough to York to participate in more than one uprising.



And one of the really fascinating aspects of the bones being found is to see how Richard has now become a instrument in arguments over the "north-south divide". I knew that if I looked before long I would find someone posting (not as dispassionate observation but as a piece of point-scoring):
"The southerners hated OUR king and made up lies about him"
 - and sure enough, I've found it....(in the comments section on a New Statesman blog I believe, if anyone's interested)

Returning to the Romanov analogy again, a lot of people seemed surprised at how raw feelings about Nicholas II were when HIS body was found, though it hardly surprising as it was barely a lifetime since his death...It's more remarkable to see Richard "participating" in arguments every bit as bitter after half a millenium....
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 14, 2013, 12:49:22 PM
Charisma. Everywhere you look, charisma.

Although in Nicholas' case, the bodies are "discovered" (as in made public) at exactly the right time, and no, I am not suggesting a conspiracy. Meaning only that it was a handy way to discredit the old regime so recently passing away. They killed that beautiful family! Those innocent children! Although no one ever seems to weep all that much over Trupp, Kharitonov, Botkin and Demidova, who were just as shot.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 14, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
Dear Janet,

I think the position of the King was transformed under the Tudors into a far more centralized monarchy than any medieval monarch would have known, thanks to the efforts of Wolsey, Cromwell and Cecil (Burghley). There is the Reformation; I doubt that any Plantagent could have conceived making the church essentially an arm of the state. There is the relationship of Richard to the nobility, who are still exercising a great deal of power right up until Bosworth --- and then spend the next 80 or 90 years having the daylights kicked out of them by Henry VII, VIII and Elizabeth, along with the rise of a powerful middle class whose interests would only have been nascent to Richard. He simply wasn't a Londoner, and by the Tudors, London was the center of royal power. I really doubt that Richard ever conceived that only London could have been that center, or he wouldn't have been so devoted to northern interests.
There are similarities --- both Richard and the Tudors had to deal with Scottish insurgency, and a few other things, but on the whole, I think you can safely use the image of the last Plantagenet king staggering around a battlefield calling for a horse as the death knell of the traditional medieval monarchy.

Simon

Thank you Simon, this is interesting, and I agree with a lot of it.

I think there is some recent scholarship (Rosemary Horrox, maybe?) exploring how some Tudor reforms built on things that Richard did vis a vis strengthening the monarchy. She also observes that he took a lot of support from relatively lowly followers, outside the aristocracy, and raised them personally. I have yet to read her book; until recently, I hadn't been near this topic in years, so while I recall all the arguments about Princes in Towers, legitimacy and the Titulus Regius, I am only now looking at the monarch he was to his subjects.

Interestingly, one of his biographers points out that being killed on the battlefield was extremely rare for a king in ANY age (they always led from the rear), and that Richard may have been following a recent Spanish example in leading a knight's charge directly at the enemy. Unfortunately, with less success.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 14, 2013, 01:03:13 PM
Interesting. I've always assumed that he fought as he had always fought, and in a way that someone who was being groomed as the successor would not have been permitted to fight. Richard had been in combat during the civil wars and wounded, and I just concluded that old instincts die hard.

I am familiar with the reliance upon non-traditional supporters, but I have always thought that was because it was his natural power base --- he simply was not going to pull in much of the southern nobility. Also, and this is the more important point, his reign is so brief (and unexpected by everyone, himself included) that I don't think you can make a lot of useful policy extrapolations based upon 18 months.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 14, 2013, 02:16:14 PM

I am familiar with the reliance upon non-traditional supporters, but I have always thought that was because it was his natural power base --- he simply was not going to pull in much of the southern nobility. Also, and this is the more important point, his reign is so brief (and unexpected by everyone, himself included) that I don't think you can make a lot of useful policy extrapolations based upon 18 months.

True - but then Henry VIII's move to make the Church an instrument of state was due to dynastic interest rather than specific policy to strengthen national autonomy - so I'd see a lot of happenstance in all of this, brought about or made possible by the changes in their societies. It's an evolution.

It might be possible to say what Richard intended where his policy as king follows on from actions as Lord of the North?

- Rosemary Horrox's view of him is that he was completely out of his depth as king, and essentially panicked. It may be her or it may be someone else who argued that this is the key to his character - by nature, he was thoughtful, merciful and pious, and when in control as a ruler he was able to demonstrate this; but when he felt he'd lost control he could be extremely ruthless (the treatment of Hastings et al attests to this, even if you leave aside the infamous Question of You-Know-Who), but not really effectively so. I am not sure at this stage if I agree - need to read more again - but it's certainly interesting.

Speaking of charisma, am I the only person who has never "got" the appeal of Henry VIII? I don't find him even fascinating as a monster...and I don't understand the endless tv series ad historical novels about the brute! As someone said, if ever there was a British monarch who deserved to be assassinated, it was Henry VIII (though I'd put William the Conqueror up there too; in this day and age, he'd be up at The Hague on charges of genocide).
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 14, 2013, 02:58:42 PM
On a lighter and more picturesque note, here for your delectation is a scene from Richard's "kingdom for a horse" in North Yorkshire this week: -

http://metro.co.uk/2013/02/11/gallery-winter-weather-and-snow-across-the-uk-february-11th-2013-3402306/ay_103527760-jpg/
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 14, 2013, 03:08:23 PM
Part of the charisma may stem from a sentimental transformation of the victim --- and it is usually a victim --- into a figure that would have been unrecognizable to his/her contemporaries . . . .

I agree, but I would argue this is the charisma of the memory, not of the person.  In fact, I think it is possible to view charisma as something that flows not downward from the person credited with it, but as something that flows upward from the audience who conjures it to fill a need they perceive.


Back to charisma; at least part of it is charm, which Hitler certainly did not have (most people in the inner circle were bored by him in social situations . . . .).

Hitler is an interesting case.  While he could certainly be a boor to some in close quarters, one has to remember that some of his entourage were willing to kill themselves and their children in service of the dream with which he inspired them.  And there are simply too many contemporary reports of the mesmerizing effect he could have on crowds to dismiss him as uncharismatic.  Given what we now know of his true personality, it would seem an illustration of the point that charisma is actually a phatasm of the viewer rather than a trait of the viewed.

Alexandra is almost the inverse case to Hitler.  Known by her intimates as kind, thoughtful, in possession of a sense of humor, she was vilified by the public as a nagging, interfering harpy who kept doubtful company.

In fact, I think Max Weber's seminal definition suggests the same view:  "Charisma...a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader."

As a person who does not believe in supernatural or superhuman powers, or even the granting by God of special powers to specific individuals, I find it much more reasonable to locate charisma in the audience's perception than in the actor's gifts.

People who show up on one list or another of charismatic leaders (and they vary widely) seem disproportionately to be people who met a violent or ignominious end: Julius Caesar, Richard III, Napoleon, Hitler, Nicholas II, Lincoln, Eva Peron, Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson . . . Jesus.  As Louis Charles noted, becoming a victim is a giant step up the ladder to charismatic status.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 14, 2013, 03:12:17 PM
Speaking of charisma, am I the only person who has never "got" the appeal of Henry VIII?

Nope, I'm with you on this one.

It's the Ivan IV Effect:  "beat me, whip me . . . just tell me that you love me."
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 14, 2013, 03:40:55 PM
I'm hurt, Tsarfan. I'm not on your list of people with charisma?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 14, 2013, 04:48:45 PM
I'm hurt, Tsarfan. I'm not on your list of people with charisma?

You will be.  But you have to die first.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 15, 2013, 03:24:58 AM

'Interestingly, one of his biographers points out that being killed on the battlefield was extremely rare for a king in ANY age (they always led from the rear), and that Richard may have been following a recent Spanish example in leading a knight's charge directly at the enemy. Unfortunately, with less success.'

Hm, not sure about this. Agreed that it was rare for kings to be killed in battle, but I'm not convinced that they all led from the rear. It was relatively unusual in medieval warfare for leading noblemen to be killed, if only because they were easily identifiable from their coats of arms and far more valuable if captured and held for ransom. It was during the Wars of the Roses that the casualty rate among the upper classes shot up because the morals of the day moved from capturing them to killing them. Further, pitched battles were also fairly rare. Sieges were far more usual, and unless there was a final assualt led by a king, he would not be in too much danger. But Richard I died from a wound received during a siege (his own fault for exposing himself too readily), Henry V's brother and heir presumptive, Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was killed during a skirmish. Somewhat later, King Sebastian of Portugal was killed in battle in North Africa (his army was overwhelmed), and Gustavus Adophus of Sweden was killed at Lutzen in 1632 while leading a charge. Plus James IV of Scots was killed at Flodden in 1513 (another military disaster).

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 15, 2013, 11:17:42 AM
I'm hurt, Tsarfan. I'm not on your list of people with charisma?

You will be.  But you have to die first.

I will stay happily dull, then.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 15, 2013, 11:26:43 AM
Never dull, good sir.  Just not yet fully charismatic.

Bones askew in dirt . . . that's the recipe.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 15, 2013, 11:29:10 AM
I feel as though all I would have to do is yell, "Wonder Twin powers, activate!"

Meanwhile . . . the hour-long BBC documentary on Richard in the Carpark has been uploaded to youtube. I know what I will be doing for the next 60 minutes.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 15, 2013, 11:30:04 AM
Quote
Agreed that it was rare for kings to be killed in battle

Wasn't Richard III the last British king to die in battle?


Quote
"Wonder Twin powers, activate!"

Ah, memories of long ago Saturday Mornings.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 15, 2013, 11:48:37 AM
Not to belabor the charisma definition, but I think that the Weber, while interesting, doesn't cast a wide enough net if it defines people as charismatic if they occupy "leadership roles" (unless I am misunderstanding what he means by that). Richard took a leadership role, but to some extent he was born into it as a member of the York dynasty. Nicholas II did not want a leadership role (cf. the statements he was wailing to Sandro right after the death of his father), and probably no one who actually knew him would have chosen him for such a station. I do think that there are people who are charismatic without occupying such a position. Noel Coward once read that he was the "wittiest man alive", and he responded, "how do you know? There could be some unknown man being witty as all get out in Urdu at this very moment." I think charisma is an inherent quality, and the world's most charismatic man could just as equally be an unknown grocery clerk in Bayswater. If you believe in God, as I do, it seems rather piddling of Weber to posit a creator who is intent upon making certain people more likable. And while I did say that some people currently deemed charismatic might have been unrecognizable to their contemporaries as a whole (Marie Antoinette, Alexandra), their close friends did find them to be so. I think that for some prominent people this is simply an inherent trait based upon looks (Kate Moss, who may be a pinhead when she opens her mouth for all I know), intellect (Socrates --- Alcibiades sees this ugly man as beautiful because of his reason), a combination of the two (don't laugh, Jacqueline Kennedy), flamboyance (Diana Vreeland), and yes, Richard. It is true that his current personality could be a later construct, but there had to be something inherent that attracted people to him. His brother George certainly didn't have it.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 15, 2013, 12:28:32 PM
'Wasn't Richard III the last British king to die in battle?'

Richard was the last English king to be killed in battle. The last British king was James IV at Flodden.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 15, 2013, 01:26:43 PM
Richard was the last English king to be killed in battle. The last British king was James IV at Flodden.

Wasn't James IV the King of Scots only?  Killed in 1513, it would be 90 years before the English throne and the Scots throne were merged into a dual monarchy under James VI/I.  But even that monarchy was joined only in the person of the king.  Scotland and England remained distinct nations until 1707, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed under Queen Anne, making George I the first king of Great Britain in 1714, almost exactly 200 years after James IV's death.

While James IV was a monarch of a land that was to become part of Great Britain, he was not a monarch of Great Britain.  And I doubt if James IV would have thought of himself as "British", but rather as a Scot.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 15, 2013, 03:21:07 PM
Whoops!  I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on February 16, 2013, 07:34:25 PM
Here's a link to the Channel 4 documentary that aired right after the U of Leic press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY

It was blocked outside the UK but is now on youtube, tho who knows for how much longer.

My problem w/ this documentary is w/ the archaeologist Jo Appleby.  She uses a mattock, ie pickaxe, when she's clearing away the soil after the leg bones have been found.  Lo and behold she doesn't expect the skull to be where it is and cracks it and knocks the face off!  I understand the grave was too short for the body and consequently the skull wasn't in the expected position, but really.  That close to a skeleton all I've seen used are a trowel and a brush.  Her attitude after was like, oh well that sheet happens!

Also she freely tosses around the word hunchback.  She should have known the historic importance of this and been more circumspect  IMO.  Especially since it turns out the condition was scoliosis, NOT kyphonosis which is a hunchback.  She was doing the opposite of what a true academician should do; took her preconceptions and made them fit the finding, rather than carefully examining the finding and figure out whether the preconceptions were true.

Exactly the same happened w/ the bones in the urn in 1933.  You would think we've progressed since then, grrr.  The examiners started w/ the old stories and made their findings fit the accepted tales.  Bad science and bad history result.  Maybe they should have had someone w/ more experience on this find since Dr. "Ooops" Appleby just got her degree in 2008?

However, the result is that this discovery PROVES that Shakespeare's hunchback w/ a withered arm was an invention.  No thanks to "Ooops" who considerably muddied the waters w/ the media from what I've read.

T
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 17, 2013, 05:27:32 AM
Salaam, Most Esteemed Tsarfan

I'm using British king in in the sense of a monarch from one of the realms which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

I doubt whether Richard III would have considered himself British either!

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Tsarfan on February 17, 2013, 06:20:00 AM
I doubt whether Richard III would have considered himself British either!

True.

I have always been a bit befuddled about what is English and what is British.  Audrey fforbes-Hamilton tried to explain who's in and who's out with her somewhat less than helpful pronouncement, "England for the English, as we always used to say about India".

More apropos of Richard, though, was her warning, "do watch out for bones, everybody".
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on February 19, 2013, 02:05:52 PM
Yes and like a lot of programmes it ignores some of the real facts - it was based on work by a relatively well known historian i believe.
It is just one of a barrage of Ricardian theorising used to try and defend Richard III taking the throne in 1483 - Edward was illegitimate, Edward's marriage was invalid etc.
Nor was it any surprise there are numerous Plantagenet descendants some 'common' and some others titled - on the York side alone there are the descendants of George of Clarence (through his daughter Margaret Pole - Hastings is just one of those - descendants of Anne of York whose DNA was used to identify Richard III's body. There are numerous descendants of Isabel of York the aunt of Richard and Edward as well).
It is of course irrelevant Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest not by hereditary right - therefore the claims of anyone else were negated at least legally if not morally - his rights did not rest with his marriage to Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth (who had numerous Plantagenet descents through her own mother Elizabeth Woodville even if her father's only royal descent came through his mother Cecily Neville.)

As an interesting aside on Richard III,  I just saw an interesting program courtesy of You Tube. It was a 2004 show by Tony Robinson entitiled Britain's Real Monarch (for those of you unfamiliar with him he's an interesting chap who does an English version of History's Detective) on the possibilty that Edward IV was, in fact, illegitimate, thereby invalidating the claim of the Tudors (and their descendants) to the crown. The proof seems to hinge on the fact that Edward's Father was off in France fighting about the time he was supposed to have been conceived. If correct, this would mean that the throne would, in fact, revert to the Plantagenents. But, you might think, that Richard III was the last of that line and it ended on Bosworth Field. Apparently not. It appears there is a line of descendents through the Hastings family and the Earl of Loudon and, mirabile dictu, a descendent lives on in Australia, Michael Hastings. Actually a regular bloke who believes that Australia should be a Republic and sever its ties to England.

Here are the arguments from Wikipedia:

" In a 2004 television documentary it was revealed that records discovered in the archives of Rouen Cathedral indicate that from 14 July to 21 August 1441 (the five-week period in which Edward is likely to have been conceived) Edward's supposed father was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered at the cathedral for his safety. No evidence has survived which indicates that Edward was born prematurely. The programme also drew attention to the fact that the christening celebration of Edmund, Earl of Rutland, the second son of Richard and Cecily, was a lavish affair at the cathedral, whereas the christening of Edward, the firstborn, was low key, and in a side chapel. The programme concludes that Edward was illegitimate. For more details see the TV programme Britain's Real Monarch.

Counter-arguments to this theory are that the Duke of York could have returned to Rouen from Pontoise, because there was a road in English hands. The absence of evidence does not mean that Edward was not born prematurely. Because of high infant mortality, baptisms were often performed quickly, and Cecily had already had children who had died young. Richard, Duke of York, did not contest his paternity, and Edward IV could in any case claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest, whether he was a legitimate child or not. Even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim is via an illegitimate line, it is no weaker than that of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485."

       
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on February 19, 2013, 02:22:30 PM

Tudor policy (certainly under Henry VII) pretty much followed on from Edward IV and Richard III (neither of whom relied on the traditional arms of the medieval state as much as their Lancastrian predecessors)
It was also aided by a largely weakened aristocracy. The development of the church as a state arm was of course in part driven by Henry VIII's desire to father a male heir but the Lutheran view of a no popes in the biible but plenty of kings had its appeal as well especially to a man like Henry.
Edward IV had relied heavily on transferring regional power to various ultra loyal men - you could argue the marriages of his family and his wife's family had created a new nobility entirely dependent on the crown for its patronage etc binding them to the crown in a way that hadn't applied as much in the recent past - Wales (nominally the prince of wales' council - effectively Rivers), the Midlands (Hastings), the North (Richard of Gloucester), the South West (Grey).
Richard's accession or usurpation through all of that into disarray and meant he was much weaker than his brother had been - Edward's household had been largely based upon the people he'd known for years - friends and family.
Richard had a void to fill so naturally chose people he had known for years unfortunately their power base was exceptionally narrow and didn't really expand beyond those who benefited from his accession (such as the Howards).
He is of course far from the monster that has been portrayed in the following centuries but nor is he the perfect rennaissance prince so many Ricardians have portrayed him as over the years.
Interestingly now we know he did have a slight deformity it will give new fodder for historians to guess at the impact on the younger brother of being so very different from his taller, fittter, glamourous older brother.


I am familiar with the reliance upon non-traditional supporters, but I have always thought that was because it was his natural power base --- he simply was not going to pull in much of the southern nobility. Also, and this is the more important point, his reign is so brief (and unexpected by everyone, himself included) that I don't think you can make a lot of useful policy extrapolations based upon 18 months.

True - but then Henry VIII's move to make the Church an instrument of state was due to dynastic interest rather than specific policy to strengthen national autonomy - so I'd see a lot of happenstance in all of this, brought about or made possible by the changes in their societies. It's an evolution.

It might be possible to say what Richard intended where his policy as king follows on from actions as Lord of the North?

- Rosemary Horrox's view of him is that he was completely out of his depth as king, and essentially panicked. It may be her or it may be someone else who argued that this is the key to his character - by nature, he was thoughtful, merciful and pious, and when in control as a ruler he was able to demonstrate this; but when he felt he'd lost control he could be extremely ruthless (the treatment of Hastings et al attests to this, even if you leave aside the infamous Question of You-Know-Who), but not really effectively so. I am not sure at this stage if I agree - need to read more again - but it's certainly interesting.

Speaking of charisma, am I the only person who has never "got" the appeal of Henry VIII? I don't find him even fascinating as a monster...and I don't understand the endless tv series ad historical novels about the brute! As someone said, if ever there was a British monarch who deserved to be assassinated, it was Henry VIII (though I'd put William the Conqueror up there too; in this day and age, he'd be up at The Hague on charges of genocide).
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on February 20, 2013, 03:18:16 PM
Quote
Interestingly now we know he did have a slight deformity


Yeah, but not the withered arm or hunchback.  That was all Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on February 20, 2013, 05:09:56 PM
mcdnab,
If I'm reading the sentence below correctly, I think you have it all wrong.

"Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth (who had Plantagenet descents through her own mother Elizabeth Woodville even if her father's only royal descent came through his mother Cecily Neville.)"

Looking back a number of generations I find no Plantagenet ancestors for Eliz. Woodville.  However Elizabeth of York's father Edward IV, had at least 5 lines of descent thru his father, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, in addition to several lines thru his mother Cecily Neville.  Richard, Duke of York was the senior heir general of Edward III, thru his second son, Lionel of Antwerp.

Going back 4 generations from Richard, Duke of York, you find among his grt. grt. grandparents: Edward II, Lionel Of Antwerp, Elizabeth de Burgh, Joan "the Fair Maid of Kent", and Eleanor of Lancaster.  All of them descended from Plantagenet kings

T
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on February 20, 2013, 06:49:49 PM
Here's a couple of links from the UL site. The first explains a lot about
why they released the info when they did. Very illustrative in the
comments, seems like several from the University staff are commenting.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html

This a great explanation of Ibsen's line.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/familytree.html

These are all about the DNA & genealogy. I haven't had time to look for
anything there about the archeology, I'd like to look and see what is said
if anything about Appleby's cracking Richard's skull.

T
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on February 21, 2013, 02:17:26 AM
I think Mcdnab is referring to the position applicable if Edward IV were not the Duke of York's son (a hypothesis which doesn't convince me).

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Alianora on February 21, 2013, 07:30:55 AM
mcdnab,
If I'm reading the sentence below correctly, I think you have it all wrong.

"Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth (who had Plantagenet descents through her own mother Elizabeth Woodville even if her father's only royal descent came through his mother Cecily Neville.)"

Looking back a number of generations I find no Plantagenet ancestors for Eliz. Woodville.  However Elizabeth of York's father Edward IV, had at least 5 lines of descent thru his father, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, in addition to several lines thru his mother Cecily Neville.  Richard, Duke of York was the senior heir general of Edward III, thru his second son, Lionel of Antwerp.

Going back 4 generations from Richard, Duke of York, you find among his grt. grt. grandparents: Edward II, Lionel Of Antwerp, Elizabeth de Burgh, Joan "the Fair Maid of Kent", and Eleanor of Lancaster.  All of them descended from Plantagenet kings

T

You have to go back pretty far to find Elizabeth Woodville's Plantagenet ancestors.  She was descended from Eleanor, the youngest daughter of King John, and her husband Simon de Montfort (through their son Guy, who married into an Italian noble family).
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on February 21, 2013, 01:03:51 PM
Just to clarify i was pointing out that even if you beleived Edward IV not to be the son of Richard Duke of York then his descendants have Plantagenet connections through his wife Elizabeth Woodville.

As has been pointed out through her grandmother Margaret de Baux - Elizabeth was descended from Eleanor of England daughter of King John. Through her grandfather Peter Count of St Pol she was also descended from Beatrice of England daughter of Henry III.

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on February 21, 2013, 05:50:17 PM
Thanks for the clarification mcdnab.  I understood the sentence but not the underlying supposition.

And thanks for the details on E. Woodville's lineage.  It's back aways, but she indeed had 2 lines of Plantagenet descent.

T
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 24, 2013, 03:10:39 AM
Info for anyone who can get More4.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story (http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story)

Wednesday 27th February at 9 pm.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 24, 2013, 03:35:20 AM
I've seen the adverts - it looks like they are doing something pitched at the scientific end of the spectrum, as opposed to the rather uneasy hybrid of popular/science of the first programme. 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on February 28, 2013, 03:02:00 AM
Info for anyone who can get More4.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story (http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story)

Wednesday 27th February at 9 pm.

The programme had the same presenter, Simon Farnaby, and was clearly simply parts of Channel 4's extensive footage of the dig and aftermath which hadn't been shown before because (from what one could deduce) it was entirely unsensational.  Although Philippa Langley was occasionally present, all her emoting was removed, only a tiny remnant of Simon Farnaby's fey (and entirely mistaken) saluting of Michael Ibsen as the last Plantagenet was shown, and the rest was the archaeologists and scientists being very low key and informative with Farnaby mostly a voiceover.  I found it much more interesting than the first programme which I now wished I'd never seen as it irritated me too much.  This was just a quick and clean presentation of what happened from a purely scientific/historical point of view.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 28, 2013, 01:15:02 PM
Thanks for that CountessKate. I missed it but hope to watch it on "catch up" and I had heard that it was a more "grown up" version of the first documentary.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: edubs31 on March 04, 2013, 09:55:01 PM
Ugh, what a control freak! :-)

http://news.yahoo.com/dead-king-richard-iii-control-freak-psychologists-015918086.html
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on March 05, 2013, 01:54:07 AM
Um, he was a medieval King.... Psychologists...sheesh.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on March 12, 2013, 06:33:33 AM
Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048).

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 12, 2013, 06:14:51 PM
Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048).

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).

Here is the debate: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21757331

Isn't Hugh Bayley Labour, though?


Meanwhile, Leicester Cathedral has thrown the cat well and truly among the pigeons by announcing that it has no room for the tomb which the Society had designed,

http://m.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story.html?aid=18391233

and which the Society's members had evidently contributed to on the expectation that it would be used. Some of them had been extremely defensive of Leicester's claim to keep the King's bones.



This is becoming a tremendous mess.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on March 13, 2013, 07:57:24 PM
Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048).

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).

Here is the debate: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21757331

...


Meanwhile, Leicester Cathedral has thrown the cat well and truly among the pigeons by announcing that it has no room for the tomb which the Society had designed,

http://m.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story.html?aid=18391233

and which the Society's members had evidently contributed to on the expectation that it would be used. Some of them had been extremely defensive of Leicester's claim to keep the King's bones.


This is becoming a tremendous mess.

Indeed Janet it has, very sad.  From what I've seen there was much acceptance of Leicester Cathedral amongst Ricardians, partly based on the fact it was presented as a done deal.  IE, it was put out that the license for exhumation required reburial in the nearest appropriate burial spot.

However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.  Just recently they haven't helped themselves by rejecting a tomb, insisting on a slab and then releasing this brief-
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofR\ichardIII130313.pdf

Overall the brief isn't too bad, but there are a couple of things that Ricardians object to, including an inaccurate bit of history re: Bosworth.  But hey, it's RIII, comes w/ the territory.  Seems like they really mucked it up, almost a done deal.

As I'm an American I won't offer an opinion, other than to say there are other places maybe more apropo and the deceit by UoL leaves a bad taste for anyone who values honesty.

T

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on March 13, 2013, 08:17:30 PM
Quote
However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.   

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 16, 2013, 12:05:26 PM
Quote
However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.   

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.

The terms of the license, though, seem to have given Leicester University the right to decide the place of burial - but did not specify that this had to be local.  In other words, according to this interpretation, it would have been perfectly possible for the University to consult widely before choosing a burial spot, once it was aware that the bones were not those of "an unnamed individual".

There are also stories at large - and to judge from this interview with John Ashdown-Hill (http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html?SSScrollPosition=0) they are not just internet gossip - that the Society made its position on the tomb's design clear with Leicester, but that a "change of management" in the Cathedral has caused the Cathedral to renege on the agreement.

I feel sorry to an extent for Leicester cathedral, which is obviously a working church which has had this rather foisted upon them, and does not have the capacity for a royal tomb. Rightly or wrongly, royal tombs are better suited to sites which are accustomed to act as museums/memorials as well.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on March 16, 2013, 06:03:37 PM
Quote
There are also stories at large - and to judge from this interview with John Ashdown-Hill (http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html?SSScrollPosition=0) they are not just internet gossip - that the Society made its position on the tomb's design clear with Leicester, but that a "change of management" in the Cathedral has caused the Cathedral to renege on the agreement.

I feel sorry to an extent for Leicester cathedral, which is obviously a working church which has had this rather foisted upon them, and does not have the capacity for a royal tomb. Rightly or wrongly, royal tombs are better suited to sites which are accustomed to act as museums/memorials as well.

A very interesting article.  It all seems a bit sad, really, that this truly fabulous discovery seems to be bogging down in disappointment and (albeit so far, polite) argument.  I actually thought the Society's projected tomb seemed the right way to go though would agree Leicester Cathedral doesn't appear the right place for it.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Terence on March 16, 2013, 09:18:29 PM
Quote
However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.  

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.

I don't think it's in the least unfair.  The licence has always allowed burial of an unidentified person nearest the nearest burial site.  An identified person is another issue, there are national guidlines, like I mentioned, they are being ignored.  IMO they were deceptive about this, from what I have read.  Now we know they are renigging on a previous agreement about the tomb.

And as you can see from the comments here the persons involved from the begining have been misled.  Both John and Phillipa who really made this project possible are extremely upset at the current state of things.

http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html

Very sad that Richard was abused before his burial and now some want to repeat it.

T
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on March 19, 2013, 04:15:28 AM
This from Richard III mailings.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-options-open-king-s-resting-place/story-18425295-detail/story.html#ixzz2NosVOsgT (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-options-open-king-s-resting-place/story-18425295-detail/story.html#ixzz2NosVOsgT)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on April 03, 2013, 02:43:56 PM
Personally I was surpised Leicester Cathedral was so vocal about what it wanted for the tomb given the ongoing row over whether it should be there at all.
To be fair the Cathedral is correct that recent royal memorials are plain slabs (to be fair that is in part because recent monarchs are buried at St George's Windsor which is not exactly awash with room for elaborate tombs) it is also more in keeping with the more modern view of memorial stones in general.
I am not over keen on any kind of 'mock' 15th century imagined style tomb as like the one that has been proposed which is not reallly in keeping with the cathedral.
As to the licence row it rumbles on as a group of descendants of Richard's siblings have now threatened a judicial review (which in England means a judge examines all the details relating to the decision in this case the licence and rules whether it has been fair to all parties etc)
The university has pointed out in response that the relatives are so distantly related and so much time has passed since the death of Richard III they were under no obligation to consult them over the burial plans.
It is also worth pointing out that some of the first calls for burial in York came from councillors in the city on the day the authority announced a rise in tax,cuts in services and job losses (a good day to bury bad news perhaps)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on June 17, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Bit of an update. It seems that Richard is definately going to be reinterred at Leicester Cathedral. One thing mentioned that is beginning to make my blood potentially boil is this...
Leicester is a multicultural city, ( aren't they all!) and the council are feeling some disquiet over having Richard's "boar" on his tomb/tabletop tomb/slab.
The Richard III society has pointed out that this is his cognizance and as such, it is unacceptable to omit it.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on June 18, 2013, 08:46:55 AM
Bit of an update. It seems that Richard is definately going to be reinterred at Leicester Cathedral. One thing mentioned that is beginning to make my blood potentially boil is this...
Leicester is a multicultural city, ( aren't they all!) and the council are feeling some disquiet over having Richard's "boar" on his tomb/tabletop tomb/slab.
The Richard III society has pointed out that this is his cognizance and as such, it is unacceptable to omit it.


On what grounds is the council feeling disquiet? 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on June 18, 2013, 09:25:40 AM
Presumably on the basis that the wild boar is member of the pig family, and therefore that the symbol might be offensive to Muslims. Leicester has a very large Asian population - about one-thid of the total when I lived there 12 years ago.

Have the council made any inquiries of the local Muslims?

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on June 18, 2013, 10:59:51 AM
Presumably on the basis that the wild boar is member of the pig family, and therefore that the symbol might be offensive to Muslims. Leicester has a very large Asian population - about one-thid of the total when I lived there 12 years ago.

Have the council made any inquiries of the local Muslims?

Ann

I hadn't heard about this latest twist in an already incredibly serpentine story, but suspect that no enquiries were made.  Unless there was something inherently insulting about the depiction of the wild boar, I can't see that the Muslim community (equalled in Leicester, actually, by the Hindu and Sikh communities together, although it actually is the largest of the Asian religions there if you can call East African Indian origins Asian) objecting to the image in a Christian place of worship any more than they seem to object to images of pigs in shops or other public places.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on June 18, 2013, 02:47:32 PM
I am betting that the Muslim ( and Jewish ) communities couldnot give a stuff about this. Its probably some politically correct jobsworth in some dusty back office somewhere.
 i must re iterate that the Richard III Society has stated that it is absolutely unacceptable to omit the boar device
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on June 19, 2013, 02:35:37 AM
Something tells me too that no one has been consulates and the council are simply jumping to conclusions.
Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on July 07, 2013, 04:35:43 AM
Bit of an update. It seems that Richard is definately going to be reinterred at Leicester Cathedral.

There is still a challenge in the High Court to this, and it has not been thrown out yet. Leicester gives the appearance of pressing ahead regardless, but the case is not cut and dried.

I am half surprised by how strongly people feel about this, away from the circles of those who have always been interested. Someone I spoke to the other day who has no particular interest in the topic said vehemently "Of COURSE he should go back to York!"
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on July 08, 2013, 01:28:24 PM
I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised - as someone who actually lives in York - let Leicester have the tourists we get enough already lol.
To be honest the whole thing is a bit daft no-one was that bothered about him before all this..... he is rather a footnote in history.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: edubs31 on July 08, 2013, 07:36:39 PM
Sorry to veer slightly off topic but did anyone catch Jeopardy tonight? A photo of Richard III's wax model recreation from his remains was shown. The winning contestant answered correctly.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on July 09, 2013, 04:40:49 PM
I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised - as someone who actually lives in York - let Leicester have the tourists we get enough already lol.
To be honest the whole thing is a bit daft no-one was that bothered about him before all this..... he is rather a footnote in history.


He is one of the better-known Kings of England, and not just through Shakespeare's portrayal. It's inevitable that there would be a (huge) surge in interest when his remains were found, but the fact that they have been says in itself that people cared and were interested. No-one is fighting to have James II rediscovered as far as I know...:-)

I do know a lot of people both in York and also elsewhere around the county, country and world who have strong views on the burial issue  - 80% in favour of York, the city to which he showed particular favour and treated as his "capital" for most of his adult life, and whose Minster he knew well. As it's not about what anyone in York or Leicester or anywhere else personally wants, surely? - or even about tourism (I wonder how many people visit a town to see a grave? don't the assorted museums to him and castles he lived in really have more draw?) rather, a question of finding an appropriate burial place for someone - else, why dig them up? The issue of Good or Bad doesn't even enter into it - we don't subject the other Kings of England to such an acid test; some of the worst tyrants in history made sure they had the most splendid grave (though there's a certain poetic justice in the spectacle of William the Conqueror bursting as he was stuffed into his tiny coffin!).

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2013, 07:17:48 AM
Well, this is an improvement on the slab idea.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23355604 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23355604)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on July 18, 2013, 02:52:56 PM
Well Shakespeare's villain is certainly a memorable character - i explained myself badly

Had it not been for the death or disappearance of the Prince's, the upsurge of interest in Richard in the 20th Century due to certain books and the PMK biography (with its numerous errors) that in turn sparked a wider interest in Richard then a King who reigned for such a short period would be remembered as a bit of a footnote.

I would be very wary of surveys of public opinion they generally are based on pretty low sampling and those people who vent or sign petitions are usually not the majority just a very vocal group.
The petitions over the burial naturally show strong favour to the idea of a York burial in part because there has been a lot of encouragement of the idea by MPs, council's , local historians and Richard III fans shall we say. Many think it is just more fitting some believe it was his wish and others just want their local area to win the row.

We still know very little about Richard's day to day life in his youth - his early childhood was probably spent with his mother at the many numerous York households (mainly Fotheringhay) - in the early 1460s he was certainly housed in London with his brother George - his wardship or care if you like was granted to the Kingmaker in the early 60s but Warwick had numerous homes across England and medieval nobility moved around their various assets a great deal - Richard certainly spent time in the north in Warwicks household but to say that Middleham was his childhood home as many claim is a stretch - by the time he was technically in Warwick's care he was already a teenager.
In the 1470s after his marriage - his division of the Warwick estates gained him significant assets in the north - and Edward naturally decided to make him the key political player in the north but he still went to war with the King in France etc. His main households were established in those northern bases.
Given the patronage he held it was only natural that local minor landlords, towns and cities looked to him as the best connected noble in the area for favours, help and patronage and like many nobles of the day he was happy to dispense it in return for local loyalty etc.

On his accession or usurpation which ever you prefer he was heavily reliant on his northern allies to hold the crown - his brother's household had been largely made up of people from the Midlands and South who resented Richard and his northern cohorts - so his continuing patr4onage to city's like York is not suprising - hence the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales in York etc.
As to his burial choice well York may have been what he intended but his chantry endowments could also have just been piety and generosity to a city that he believed was loyal to him - He buried his wife in Westminster Abbey not York.

A city that in the 1450s had been unswervignly Lancastrian in its loyalties.

I think to be honest you can argue for quite a few places - Middleham where he certainly spent a lot of time, Fotheringhay where he was most likely brought up, St George's at Windsor where his brother Edward IV was buried, or Westminster with his wife (which to be honest is where i think he shoudl have been put) as well as Leicester where he died or York Minster.

To be fair general archeaological practice is to bury an excavated body as near the original resting place as possible hence the decision by the universtiy to opt for the cathedral.
York Minster has made it catagorically clear that they are not intersted in the row and have no desire to have him buried there.
With reference publicity and tourism - given the level of interest wherever his remains end up i think it will pull in people the RII Society will be running trips from all over the world for a start and of course the reason Leicester is so keen  they will also spend cash and viist the museum to Richard the city is now planning. It has never really been about Richard for his many good and bad qualities but about the revenue and unlike York which already pulls in millions of visitors a year Leicester could do with it more. Lol.

quote author=Janet  Ashton link=topic=17261.msg525752#msg525752 date=1373406049]
I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised - as someone who actually lives in York - let Leicester have the tourists we get enough already lol.
To be honest the whole thing is a bit daft no-one was that bothered about him before all this..... he is rather a footnote in history.


He is one of the better-known Kings of England, and not just through Shakespeare's portrayal. It's inevitable that there would be a (huge) surge in interest when his remains were found, but the fact that they have been says in itself that people cared and were interested. No-one is fighting to have James II rediscovered as far as I know...:-)

I do know a lot of people both in York and also elsewhere around the county, country and world who have strong views on the burial issue  - 80% in favour of York, the city to which he showed particular favour and treated as his "capital" for most of his adult life, and whose Minster he knew well. As it's not about what anyone in York or Leicester or anywhere else personally wants, surely? - or even about tourism (I wonder how many people visit a town to see a grave? don't the assorted museums to him and castles he lived in really have more draw?) rather, a question of finding an appropriate burial place for someone - else, why dig them up? The issue of Good or Bad doesn't even enter into it - we don't subject the other Kings of England to such an acid test; some of the worst tyrants in history made sure they had the most splendid grave (though there's a certain poetic justice in the spectacle of William the Conqueror bursting as he was stuffed into his tiny coffin!).


[/quote]
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on July 19, 2013, 12:52:02 PM
Well Shakespeare's villain is certainly a memorable character - i explained myself badly

Had it not been for the death or disappearance of the Prince's, the upsurge of interest in Richard in the 20th Century due to certain books and the PMK biography (with its numerous errors) that in turn sparked a wider interest in Richard then a King who reigned for such a short period would be remembered as a bit of a footnote.

I would be very wary of surveys of public opinion they generally are based on pretty low sampling and those people who vent or sign petitions are usually not the majority just a very vocal group.
The petitions over the burial naturally show strong favour to the idea of a York burial in part because there has been a lot of encouragement of the idea by MPs, council's , local historians and Richard III fans shall we say. Many think it is just more fitting some believe it was his wish and others just want their local area to win the row.

Yes, it's true that there's a reasonable amount of local nationalism in this - but I've heard views from people all over the world, as I've said - who have no vested interest in either city, don't sign petitions, and are actually quite knowledgeable about history - not simply tagging onto the coat tails of MPs. If anything, having an MP pronounce on a issue seems to me to alienate people rather than encourage them!

We still know very little about Richard's day to day life in his youth - his early childhood was probably spent with his mother at the many numerous York households (mainly Fotheringhay) - in the early 1460s he was certainly housed in London with his brother George - his wardship or care if you like was granted to the Kingmaker in the early 60s but Warwick had numerous homes across England and medieval nobility moved around their various assets a great deal - Richard certainly spent time in the north in Warwicks household but to say that Middleham was his childhood home as many claim is a stretch - by the time he was technically in Warwick's care he was already a teenager.

English Heritage are for some reason currently describing Middleham as his "childhood home" - I don't think anyone else does. Frankly, it's puzzling, because the place is associated far more significantly with his adulthood, as you note below, and with his son - a far more compelling connection.

As to his burial choice well York may have been what he intended but his chantry endowments could also have just been piety and generosity to a city that he believed was loyal to him - He buried his wife in Westminster Abbey not York.


I think to be honest you can argue for quite a few places - Middleham where he certainly spent a lot of time, Fotheringhay where he was most likely brought up, St George's at Windsor where his brother Edward IV was buried, or Westminster with his wife (which to be honest is where i think he shoudl have been put) as well as Leicester where he died or York Minster.

No one will ever know his intentions - even his intentions for Anne, since he may have planned to rebury her once he made the point that she was Queen and would lie among Queens, or may well not have expected to be buried with her at all. He did intend to remarry. Westminster however is impossible anyway, as the Royal Household made it clear that they did not intend anyone new to be placed there - and Middleham Council is backing York.



To be fair general archeaological practice is to bury an excavated body as near the original resting place as possible hence the decision by the universtiy to opt for the cathedral.
York Minster has made it catagorically clear that they are not intersted in the row and have no desire to have him buried there.
With reference publicity and tourism - given the level of interest wherever his remains end up i think it will pull in people the RII Society will be running trips from all over the world for a start and of course the reason Leicester is so keen  they will also spend cash and viist the museum to Richard the city is now planning. It has never really been about Richard for his many good and bad qualities but about the revenue and unlike York which already pulls in millions of visitors a year Leicester could do with it more. Lol.



Archaeological practice in relation to unknown remains is to bury them near the place they were originally interred. In the case of known remains, they are supposed to consult known relatives - which seems to be the basis of the challenge to the decision. York Minster has *not* actually said they don't want him - just that they remain neutral based on the legal position. That's all. And you're right - it's not about Richard; rather more about people making money...
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Suzanne on August 12, 2013, 09:57:10 AM
My review of Anne Neville: Richard III's Tragic Queen by Amy Licence - it incorporates the latest reasearch from the discovery of Richard III's remains

http://www.royalhistorian.com/anne-neville-richard-iiis-tragic-queen-by-amy-licence/
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on August 18, 2013, 06:23:43 AM
I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/king-richard-iii-permission-judgment.pdf :-)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on August 19, 2013, 02:45:42 AM
This is a very interesting use of judicial review, which I'm going to use on my new students when they arrive in a couple of weeks, but I don't think this application will succeed.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on August 20, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
This is a very interesting use of judicial review, which I'm going to use on my new students when they arrive in a couple of weeks, but I don't think this application will succeed.

Ann

But...I am not expert in legal terms, but surely the application already HAS succeeded? The Judicial Review has been allowed.

We don't know the results of the Review itself yet - and the judge is recommending that te case be heard by an advisory committee of experts rather than turn into a legal tussle - but the application for Judicial Review itself has been allowed on grounds that Leicester University and the Ministry of Justice have failed to consult interested parties and are using precedent that does not apply here.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on August 22, 2013, 07:56:20 AM
I will have to read the transcript in detail. I am currently away from home with only my mobile! I took the transcript as an application for leave to apply for judicial review rather than the ful hearing.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on August 28, 2013, 03:45:47 AM
Reading the transcript, it is clear that thre application which has already been heard was the application for permission to apply for judicial review. Judicial review is a two-stage process, the permission (or leave) stage being designed to screen out hopeless cases. The judge has made a sensible recommendation, but it is not binding on anybody.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on August 28, 2013, 03:16:35 PM
Reading the transcript, it is clear that thre application which has already been heard was the application for permission to apply for judicial review. Judicial review is a two-stage process, the permission (or leave) stage being designed to screen out hopeless cases. The judge has made a sensible recommendation, but it is not binding on anybody.

Ann

Thanks - exactly - this is just what I took from it all. If his recommendations are ignored, it undoubtedly *will* turn into "an unseemly legal tussle".
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on August 29, 2013, 03:35:28 AM
Indeed, and speaking as a constitutional law specialist, I think  the court will almost certainly conclude that the Secretary of State and the university have done nothing unlawful.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on September 19, 2013, 10:36:34 AM
The latest on the tomb.....think its a bit "meh" but hey, at least its a "proper" table tomb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24159531 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24159531)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on September 19, 2013, 11:35:51 AM
It is awful isn't it - and big for a monarch who only ruled for a few years.
Personally i favoured the black slab (it is more in keeping with recent royal burials).
This looks a bit theme park medieval for my tastes
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on September 19, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Now, what I really think is utterly appalling and disrespectful is the little publicised fact that the University of Leicester wanted to put Richard's remains on public display.
This idea has "died a death" so to speak, thank goodness. I am well aware of the arguments for Cosmopolitanism ( a la Appiah et al), vs Cultural Relativism but I have always been uneasy re the display of the dead in museums etc. Put it this way, how would you feel if Tatiana's remains, for example, were on display to the general public to march past and gawp at?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Превед on September 19, 2013, 06:03:48 PM
Put it this way, how would you feel if Tatiana's remains, for example, were on display to the general public to march past and gawp at?

Isn't that what often happens to the relics of saints? (And the IF were demi-saints, as passion bearers.) Consider the remains of Saint Alexander Nevsky, which were transferred back to the Alexander Nevsky Monastery from the State Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism in 1989. Today you find them in a reliquary displayed to the faithful. Very much like the IF's remains in the SS. Peter & Paul Cathedral.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kalafrana on September 20, 2013, 02:50:17 AM
I think ideas have changed since the Middle Ages. Then it was normal for the remains of fairly recently dead individuals to be put on display. Nowadays it is usual for remains to be buried, and that goes for older bodies discovered recently, unless there are very strong scientific reasons for display.

Photographs of Richard's skeleton will be enough.

Ann
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on October 18, 2013, 12:11:30 PM
And here is the latest on the legal battle, with Justice Haddon-Cave ruling *against* the Minister (Chris Grayling)'s attempt to argue on behalf of the MoJ that public consultation has already taken place and the Plantagenet Alliance should not have its costs protected.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/18/richard-iii-descendants-legal-costs-judicial-review-protected

A very interesting case indeed, with some fascinating political implications.

Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on October 18, 2013, 12:17:09 PM
Private Eye also ran a piece on this recently, in which someone argued that Leicester Cathedral is using the case to commit an act of architectural vandalism by completely renovating the Cathedral ostensibly for the burial.....Rarely has a dead monarch been so alive; it reminds me very much of what Wendy Slater said about Nicholas II: that his bones hung figuratively over the whole political life of post-1991 Russia! In Richard's case it's a bit less obvious, but there is something of that in it still.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 18, 2014, 01:12:43 PM
http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/ (http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/)

An interesting read I think.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on February 27, 2014, 05:42:40 AM
http://looking-for-richard.webs.com/news (http://looking-for-richard.webs.com/news)

I think John Ashdown Hill is referring to the remains of Anne Mowbray here.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on March 27, 2014, 10:39:29 AM
Sour grapes Mr Hicks??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2590638/Skeleton-car-park-NOT-Richard-III-Experts-cast-doubts-accuracy-DNA-dating-results.html#newcomment (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2590638/Skeleton-car-park-NOT-Richard-III-Experts-cast-doubts-accuracy-DNA-dating-results.html#newcomment)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on March 29, 2014, 08:49:28 AM
This is well worth reading, especially the "comments" section.
http://www.historyextra.com/news/was-skeleton-found-leicester-car-park-really-richard-iii (http://www.historyextra.com/news/was-skeleton-found-leicester-car-park-really-richard-iii)
 
From Uni of Leics :
http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2014-archive-1/march/search-for-king-richard-iii-statement-from-the-university-of-leicester-27-march-2014 (http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2014-archive-1/march/search-for-king-richard-iii-statement-from-the-university-of-leicester-27-march-2014)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on May 03, 2014, 02:23:28 PM
Local to me and it is very beautiful "in the flesh" so to speak.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-27266728 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-27266728)

And these two sculptures. I thought the mounted knight looked like a cross between Noggin the Nog ( a very old childrens' programme ) and a load of lego bricks, but they are actually rather good close up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-27189358 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-27189358)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on May 23, 2014, 06:27:49 AM
At last.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836).

Hopefully, he will now get a dignified re-interment.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on May 24, 2014, 11:06:41 AM
Interesting piece...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26790933 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26790933)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Beautiful_Anastasia on July 17, 2014, 06:55:56 AM
I am so glad that these remains were found. Richard is my favourite King, and IMO it is ridiculous that people are arguing over where he should be buried. I live in Yorkshire and I think he should be buried in York Minster. He was a man of the North, he lived there and he was from there. His father was the Duke of York. We cannot forget that this man was a King, and therefore deserves a public funeral with all the traditional pomp and ceremony.
Emily
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on July 22, 2014, 03:13:10 AM

Few points

Richard was born in the Midlands and spent much of his earlier life following the traditional progression around his parents many estates.
On his brother's accession to the throne he was probably housed with his brother George in and around London - he did not move into Neville's care until the mid 1460s when he was a teenager (almost an adult by the standards of the time)
After the Neville's fall from favour his marriage meant he took control of the Neville's northern holdings and spent much of the 1470s acting as the main focus of Royal power in the North.
Although his father was Duke of York - York itself and much of the area was strongly Lancastrian though the Wars of the Roses and it was only Richard's influence in the 1470s as the main focus of power and patronage in the area that saw it switch its loyalties.
Given his brother's household was largely dominated by people based in the Midlands and South on his accession Richard was forced to rely very heavily on his northern supporters who were already in receipt of his patronage - which gives the added impression of Richard as a "northern" king but in that he had little choice. Had his reign lasted and people came to terms with his rule it is more likely that his household would have become very different over time and less reliant on a small section of geographic support.

As to his funeral and burial
1) York Minster's dean and chapter have made it absolutely clear it did not want to be drawn into the arguements over the burial and had the University of Leicester asked them the likely answer would have been no.
2) Royal burials had been at Westminster until Henry V's in 1422. Edward IV had rebuilt St George's Chapel at Windsor and clearly intended it as his resting place (where he and his wife were both interred). There is no evidence that Richard intended to be buried at York (despite his chantry chapel plans) - he might have preferred St George's or the family's memorial (to their father) chapel at Fotheringhay.
3) Traditionally deposed monarchs or those killed in a battle (as Richard was) were usually buried in a nearby religious institution (as he was given Leiceister didn't have a cathedral at the time).
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Janet Ashton on July 27, 2014, 05:11:15 AM

Few points

Richard was born in the Midlands and spent much of his earlier life following the traditional progression around his parents many estates.
On his brother's accession to the throne he was probably housed with his brother George in and around London - he did not move into Neville's care until the mid 1460s when he was a teenager (almost an adult by the standards of the time)
After the Neville's fall from favour his marriage meant he took control of the Neville's northern holdings and spent much of the 1470s acting as the main focus of Royal power in the North.
Although his father was Duke of York - York itself and much of the area was strongly Lancastrian though the Wars of the Roses and it was only Richard's influence in the 1470s as the main focus of power and patronage in the area that saw it switch its loyalties.


Precisely. And he showed particular favour to the city of York, additionally referring to the area as "home". The incidental fact of his Midlands birth is now being used rather disingenuously to downplay this association with Yorkshire and the north, which was previously accepted by any historian with no horse in the race. I was born in Bristol, and for six years lived there, which is more time than Richard would have spent at Fotheringhay, but I certainly don't consider myself a Bristolian. In these parochial arguments about family origins, attempting to reinvent him as a "southerner" or "midlander", people often ignore the fact that both his parents were raised at Raby Castle in County Durham - and his paternal grandfather was born and bred at Conisbrough. He was no less a "northerner" in his origins than anything else, and he spent much of his adult life in the north, the only monarch to do so. This is why people still care.


Given his brother's household was largely dominated by people based in the Midlands and South on his accession Richard was forced to rely very heavily on his northern supporters who were already in receipt of his patronage - which gives the added impression of Richard as a "northern" king but in that he had little choice. Had his reign lasted and people came to terms with his rule it is more likely that his household would have become very different over time and less reliant on a small section of geographic support.

But that didn't happen, did it? This is a bizarre argument: "we know he did x,y,z, but let's suppose he had lived longer, he might have changed, so that fact in itself is of more importance than what actually happened." :-)

As to his funeral and burial
1) York Minster's dean and chapter have made it absolutely clear it did not want to be drawn into the arguements over the burial and had the University of Leicester asked them the likely answer would have been no.
2) Royal burials had been at Westminster until Henry V's in 1422. Edward IV had rebuilt St George's Chapel at Windsor and clearly intended it as his resting place (where he and his wife were both interred). There is no evidence that Richard intended to be buried at York (despite his chantry chapel plans) - he might have preferred St George's or the family's memorial (to their father) chapel at Fotheringhay.
3) Traditionally deposed monarchs or those killed in a battle (as Richard was) were usually buried in a nearby religious institution (as he was given Leiceister didn't have a cathedral at the time).


York Minster *was* drawn in and named as an interested party in the court case. We don't know what he "might have preferred" in terms of burial, and can't possibly presume to guess, but the favour he showed York Minster was on a par with what his brother was doing at Windsor.

Monarchs may have been buried in a nearby institution, but many were subsequently moved, as we know for the examples of Richard II and Henry VI. Once you've exhumed someone, all bets are off. We know this from the Romanov example.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Carisbrooke on July 30, 2014, 07:23:30 AM
(http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag292/picturewall-55/DSCN1361a_zps18813340.jpg)
RICHARD III STATUE AT MIDDLEHAM CASTLE  Controversial when first unveiled, this statue may not have pleased the Ricardians.

RICHARDS WORLD a link by the Richard III Society
http://www.richardiii.net/richards_world.php (http://www.richardiii.net/richards_world.php)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Maria Sisi on July 30, 2014, 02:03:49 PM
Well its not that far off from reality, so I don't think Ricardians have much reason to complain.

I finally got to see the documentary, thanks to a change in cable subscription, and it was fascinating.

Philippa certainly was a character. First insisting on putting the flag over the box that may or may not have been Richard and then pulling it in the back of the van with other junk. Her stunned reaction when it was revealed they were the bones of a hunchback (scoliosis) and of course her multiple moments of emotion which were kind of over the top. Credit to her of course for helping find the bones but she really didn't do herself or other Ricardians any good really.

What was the reaction of the Ricardians after it was revealed he did indeed have a curved spine, and knowing it wasn't complete fabrication by the Tudors? I would hope it wasn't as over the top as Philippa's was.

It's also funny how after the facial reconstruction was revealed Philippa said it didn't look like the face of an evil man. First, it silly to make a statement in the first place, and second, I wish someone would have pointed out to her it looked remarkably like the famous painting made in Tudor times. Are the other Ricardians  ignoring that too?

Of course not everything the Tudors said about Richard was correct but they did get the curve in the spine and the portrait correct.


 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on July 30, 2014, 04:40:58 PM
Maria Sisi, please do some research on Scoliosis before you post...Scoliosis does NOT equal hunchback. WOuld you call Usain Bolt a hunchback for he has scoliosis. Kyphosis is what people refer to as "hunchback" if you wish to use that derogatory term.
Richard's scoliosis was such that it would have been disguised by well cut clothing, he may only have had a slight "lift" in one shoulder and it wouldnot have been noticeable when dressed.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Maria Sisi on July 30, 2014, 05:34:57 PM
I know scoliosis doesn't equal hunchback, sorry if I offended that wasn't my intention. I was trying to repeat what they were saying in the documentary while putting the correct term as we know it today in prentices next to it but it clearly didn't look good.

Obviously back then they didn't know what scoliosis was so they used "hunchback".

I was surprised they even used it quite freely in the documentary and said it quite often instead of the correct medical terms. When they first unearthed the bones they kept referring to the skeleton as a hunchback and it wasn't until they were in the medical room that they started saying scoliosis/curvature of the spine, although they were still saying hunchback too.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2014, 08:43:29 AM
Thats ok Maria Sisi :-)
I know what you mean about Philippa Langley on the documentary. When I first saw it my instant reaction was "oh gawd, she is a bit over the top" but thinking about it afterwards, this has been her passion for over 15 years. She, along with John Ashdown Hill have persevered with getting the archaeological dig going and her persistance has paid dividends.
Thought this might interest you.....the Richard III Vi$itor Centre has now opened.......seems he is getting a role in Star Wars.
http://www.annettecarson.co.uk/357052365/2085370/posting/richard-iii-visitor-centre-leicester (http://www.annettecarson.co.uk/357052365/2085370/posting/richard-iii-visitor-centre-leicester).
As for the Richard statue at Middleham ( which by the way, is a lovely little village/town and well worth a visit), well, I think its a bit "meh". Best translation of "meh" is a shrug of the shoulders :-)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2014, 08:50:56 AM
Here is a much more dynamic statue of Richard...
http://www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk/images/leicester/1020842.jpg (http://www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk/images/leicester/1020842.jpg)
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Maria Sisi on July 31, 2014, 01:06:09 PM
So they tried to wipe out or cover over the contributions of Philippa and other Ricardians in the center, wow that's rude.

I really wonder why they did that. My first thought was that for some reason they didn't want to be associated with the Richard III Society and then they just wanted to take all the credit for themselves. Either way it is rude and if they didn't wanted to be associated with them they should have done their research in a different matter.

Yes the armor recreation does look like a Star Wars storm trooper but I guess it was bound to look like that when they made it in plastic. I'm not sure people would be saying Star Wars if it was in metal or something else.

What does the Richard statue in Middleham look like?
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Hi Maria Sisi, if you scroll back to post 198 ( its on the previous page), you will see a pic of the statue at Middleham kindly posted by Carisbrooke.
 As for your other question.... £££££s or if you would rather..$$$$$ and kudos I guess. But that is only my opinion.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: mcdnab on August 05, 2014, 06:05:18 AM
Hi Janet

My original point was in answer to a post suggesting Richard's northern connections were due to his father's title which of course is not the case.
My other point probably badly expressed is that as a northerner (in fact I live in York) I dislike that the arguement has become a typical north v south exercise.
I find it a bit pointless and negative to be honest and I have no desire to claim Richard as either a northerner/southerner or midlander.
He was an English-man with a strong connection to the north due to a mixture of family connections and where he was based in service to his brother.
Use of a modern phrase such as "born and bred" is simply not applicable for most nobles or royals of the period as they led peripatetic lives and we do not know much about their childhood and infancy.
His parents as you point out had strong northern connections - his mother was probably largely based at Raby during her infancy - but given her parents considerable wealth would have moved around from great castle to great castle throughout her childhood.
His father Richard Duke of York - certainly spent a great deal of his youth in Yorkshire but it is arguable whether he was based at Raby given his guardianship was not awarded to Neville (who had his wardship) and his guardian was based largely in what is now West Yorkshire and he opted to make his principal homes and residences in areas closer to the bulk of his landholdings or where he was needed in service to the crown.

I just dislike because it isn't based on anything other than guess work attributing personal feelings to individuals long-dead particularly given the sparcity of evidence and whilst your response was factual many of the arguements about this issue have devolved into doing just that.
Absolutely he spent much of his adult life in the area and York was the largest civic and religious centre of the area at that period - but the language of grants, favours and patronage that survive use the effusive language of the period which hardly give an indication of someone's real feelings.
I admit showing particular favour to a city or area may well be a sign of affection as you say but it is also a sign of exercising patronage for strategic political purpose especially given the area's previous loyalties.

Richard may well have considered himself "at home" in an area he spent much of his adult life in and seems to have gained local respect in an area without a strong record of support for the House of York but whilst that explains the regard some in the north have for him even today it doesn't give any indication of where he would have wanted himself laid to rest.

No-one disputes Richard is largely seen as a "northern" King but equally I don't think that is a justification for arguing he should not have been reinterred in Leicester close to where he fell.
He buried his wife in Westminster Abbey for example and we don't know where he buried his son though he died at Middleham.
His plans for York Minster are on a par with other endowments he planned elsewhere (specifically at Barnard Castle and at Middleham) so I don't think you can take that as any indication of his personal desires for his own burial.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on August 07, 2014, 08:49:16 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28687107 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28687107)

The reburial of Richard III
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: CountessKate on August 19, 2014, 12:18:58 PM
Quote
So they tried to wipe out or cover over the contributions of Philippa and other Ricardians in the center, wow that's rude.

I've just been to the centre and they do not wipe out or cover over the contributions of Philippa Langley at all - they acknowledge in several places that she was crucial to the dig and she in fact has a section of the exhibition to herself where there's actually a recording of her voice.  They don't particularly go to town over the Ricardians' contribution but they don't downplay or hide it either.  Frankly, I thought it was better without the strong agenda demonstrated in Annette Carson's blog, and although there were some things I didn't particularly care for, the 'projected image of the king’s remains lying in his grave' was in fact sensitively done and was one of the highlights. 
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Maria Sisi on August 20, 2014, 01:17:39 PM
Quote
So they tried to wipe out or cover over the contributions of Philippa and other Ricardians in the center, wow that's rude.

I've just been to the centre and they do not wipe out or cover over the contributions of Philippa Langley at all - they acknowledge in several places that she was crucial to the dig and she in fact has a section of the exhibition to herself where there's actually a recording of her voice.  They don't particularly go to town over the Ricardians' contribution but they don't downplay or hide it either.  Frankly, I thought it was better without the strong agenda demonstrated in Annette Carson's blog, and although there were some things I didn't particularly care for, the 'projected image of the king’s remains lying in his grave' was in fact sensitively done and was one of the highlights. 

Well that's good to know. It's only natural that the people in charge of the center wouldn't want the "strong agenda" that the Ricardians planned for and want things more centered and unbiased.

I'm glad it appears that you had a good time at the center and the 'projected image' does sound amazing to see.
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: Kimberly on September 08, 2014, 12:53:15 PM
Here is the planned itinerary for the reburial in 2015.
Sunday March 22nd.
King Richard III will leave Leicester university for Bosworth. Returning to Leicester, he will be received at the cathedral by the Archbishop of Westminster.
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 23rd, 24th and 25th March he will lie in repose.
Thursday March 26th, Richard will be re - interred in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Channel 4 will be televising the service live.
Friday March 27th, the revealing of the sealed tomb.
Saturday March 28th. The area around the tomb will be open to the public.
Cheers. Kimx
Title: Re: Richard III remains found & identified
Post by: TimM on April 15, 2015, 07:16:30 PM
Hopefully, this will help the image of this much maligned King. 

As I said, I think most base their opinions on Richard III because of the Shakespeare play, not the actual man himself.