Author Topic: Richard III remains found & identified  (Read 166099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #180 on: February 27, 2014, 05:42:40 AM »
http://looking-for-richard.webs.com/news

I think John Ashdown Hill is referring to the remains of Anne Mowbray here.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 08:54:00 AM by Kimberly »
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #183 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

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
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #184 on: May 23, 2014, 06:27:49 AM »
At last.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836.

Hopefully, he will now get a dignified re-interment.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #185 on: May 24, 2014, 11:06:41 AM »
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Beautiful_Anastasia

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • I love Chris Massoglia!!!!
    • View Profile
    • The Blackrock Panthers
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #186 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

Offline mcdnab

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #187 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).

Offline Janet Ashton

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • www.directarticle.org
    • View Profile
    • Direct Article
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #188 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.
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many; they are few.

Ian (UK)

  • Guest
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #189 on: July 30, 2014, 07:23:30 AM »

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

Offline Maria Sisi

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #190 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.


 

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #191 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.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Maria Sisi

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #192 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.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 05:40:28 PM by Maria Sisi »

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #193 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.
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 :-)
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« Reply #194 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
Member of the Richard III Society