Richard III remains found & identified

[Louis_Charles]

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.

[Kalafrana]

'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

[Tsarfan]

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.

[TimM]

Whoops!  I stand corrected.

[Terence]

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

[Kalafrana]

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

[Tsarfan]

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".

[mcdnab]

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."

       

[mcdnab]

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).

[TimM]

Interestingly now we know he did have a slight deformity

Yeah, but not the withered arm or hunchback.  That was all Shakespeare.

[Terence]

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

[Terence]

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

[Kalafrana]

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

[Alianora]

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).

[mcdnab]

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.