Richard III remains found & identified

[Tsarfan]

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.

[LadyHezter]

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

[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.

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.

[LadyHezter]

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

[Tsarfan]

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.

[LadyHezter]

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

[TimM]

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.

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.

[Kimberly]

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

[Tsarfan]

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).

[CountessKate]

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.  

[CountessKate]

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.

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.

[Kimberly]

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 :-)

[Tsarfan]

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.

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).  

[TimM]

Some consider the Middle Ages running from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the New World.

[Tsarfan]

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.