Richard III remains found & identified

[TimM]

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.

[CountessKate]

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.

[Kalafrana]

'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

[CountessKate]

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.

[TimM]

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.

[Kalafrana]

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

[Kimberly]

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.

 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 .

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

[TimM]

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.

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.

[Kimberly]

hey, Tim, its no biggy just want to keep things together. Please keep it up.
Cheers. Kimx

[mcdnab]

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.

[CountessKate]

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.

[Kalafrana]

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

[CountessKate]

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! 

[Tsarfan]

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.

[Kalafrana]

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