Richard III remains found & identified

[Janet Ashton]

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. 

[Janet Ashton]

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....

[Louis_Charles]

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

[Janet Ashton]

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?

[Tsarfan]

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.

[Kalafrana]

'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

[Maria the Beautiful]

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.

[Janet Ashton]

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.

[Louis_Charles]

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.

[Kimberly]

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"....

[Tsarfan]

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.

[Kimberly]

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.

[TimM]

I look forward to seeing them.

[Kimberly]

Well, here it is;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21427369

[CountessKate]

Restrained and tasteful - one wishes such advisers had been at hand when Queen Victoria was approving the designs for the Albert Memorial.