Well, you must forgive those of us who appear to you to be "absurd" in our attempts to discuss this.

It is all terribly confusing. I watched the last programme of the BBC series The Plantagenets last night, and even the series presenter, Professor Robert Bartlett (who would appear to know what he's talking about - see below), referred to Richard III as the king whose remains have been recently discovered (I've deleted the programme, so I can't, unfortunately, give you his exact words). Is he too "absurd" in his apparent acceptance of the findings of the University of Leicester team?

"If I am honest" I really do not know what to think: can it be that the whole of British academia  - with the exception of a few lone voices like that of Michael Hicks  - is involved in some dreadful scam, a huge cover-up operation? I sincerely hope not.

Wish Andrew Spencer or Catigern were around. It would be interesting to have their opinions on all of this.



Robert Bartlett FBA, FRSE (born 27 November 1950) is an English historian and medievalist.

He currently holds the position of Wardlaw Professor of Mediaeval History at the University of St Andrews. After attending Battersea Grammar School in London (1962 to 1969), he studied at Peterhouse, Cambridge, St John's College, Oxford and Princeton University. He obtained research fellowships at several institutions, including the University of Michigan and Georg-August University of Göttingen, before working at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Chicago and the University of St Andrews, where he currently resides.

I would imagine historians might be less interested in the issue than archaeologists and more ready to "go with the flow" regarding the veracity of the alleged find. After all the find gives us nothing of any great relevance with regard to the historical sequence of events around the crown seizures or the biographies of the leading players. However the issue here is one of integrity (in every sense of the word) and archaeologists, whose profession it is falls under the spotlight here, must have a stake in determining how and why this apparent departure from normal procedure has occurred.

Professor Hicks, from what I have read that he's written previously, is a historian who takes inordinate care to marry his biographical analysis to archaeological and documentary data so it is no surprise that he has expressed reservations in this case which also involves one of his own specialist subjects. However it is interesting to see that there has also arisen an apparent divide between the two parties who collaborated in the excavation as exemplified by statements made in February by John Ashdown-Hill. He describes himself as an "independent" [sic] historian and is firmly in the Philippa camp regarding authenticity of the bones as Richard's. His outburst however was prompted by the University of Leicester's decision to retain the bones for further analysis - a quite understandable position on the university's side given the paucity of data they as yet have isolated or at least deemed fit for public consumption. This tension and growing distrust between the previous collaborators suggests to me that those with more rigid academic training and standards are in fact attempting (belatedly) to amass data to corroborate the highly publicised claims made in 2013 and which they know is now long overdue. Reputations are at stake here, especially in such a high-profile case, and recent events suggest that some steps are being taken to protect them.

It is about the only slight cause for optimism that I can detect since this charade began and I sincerely hope that it leads to proper disclosure of the forensic data and analysis in due course, though at this point in time "overdue course" is actually the term that applies. "Proper" of course in this case also means simply that data be released for review, not the "cart before the horse" declarations of authenticity which characterised the initial announcements by all parties. If this disclosure scuppers the political pr personal agendas of certain individuals, even those of their previous collaborators, so what? The alternative is to accept that academic integrity and honesty are secondary in importance to the pursuit of those agendas and if that should be the case then even a belated confirmation after review of the bones' authenticity would be too little and too late to recover from the damage done.

There is a lot more at stake here, in other words, than kings or bones.

Islanddawn wrote:

This is exactly where this thread crosses over with another. Phillipa Gregory anyone? And by falsely calling herself an 'historian' is claiming that very voice of authority to spread hypothesis as fact.

Oh Island D, you are a one....but I concede you have a point.

Sorry LiR, can't help myself.  

What to say?
Apologies if this is disjointed. So much about "the truth" and people's "reputations" when have these ever applied to Richard III?
Stop the Burger Joint analogy what about the Japanese harpooning whales for "scientific purposes" again and again and again. We all know they like to eat whales! Science doesn't come into the matter. It is a facade, a pretense to get at the meat.
Leicester University has harpooned the remains of Richard III and are tearing at what he may offer up as I write. Why do you suppose the BBC gave the Easter Eucharist to.....drum roll....Leicester Cathedral!? A small, uninteresting place of worship where the Traditional Easter Lillies were submerged by vast festoons and displays of out of season White Roses. During his dull sermon the Dean made a gesture towards the chancel and said, this is where Richard III lies. I must admit I was rather shocked. Have I missed something? Thankfully I had not and the man was delusional. Hoping (possibly practicing) for future events.
I loved your post SST 2679 and you are quite right I am probably that awkward person but I'm also that very boring "vicar's daughter", whose family has been engulfed by clerics, who seem to be everywhere! I don't know much about Genomes but I was very good at Human Biology and being a dissident. But I do believe that there is such a thing as what is "right" and what is "wrong". This is possibly what the History of Richard III is all about. And on far too many occasions the Church has sided with the Establishment. It has to stop!
We know that Richard died at Bosworth near Leicester and that his body, after being displayed at Leicester, was buried at Leicester. The Tudor tyranny began and King Richard III's body was buried quickly, before Henry VII could accuse anyone of treason having backdated his reign to the day before the Battle of Bosworth. Nervous monks would not know what to do and not knowing (or believing this new king on the block would eventually give him any burial) disposed of the corpse. Having been dragged around as many churches as I have when dad was doing lectures on Church architecture, to help with the income for our large family, I picked things up and know anyone of high status would be buried in the chancel near the High Alter. At St David's Cathedral Edmund Tudor's table top tomb prevents one from getting to the alter!
Nervous monks would have thought it impossible not to bury an anointed king, anywhere but in the chancel near the High Alter. And this is where the remains of a body now "reputed" to be Richard III were found. Personally I would have thought that Henricians would have been jubilant that a body from this period, with curvature of the spine caused by scoliosis proving their Shakesperian "bunch backed poisonous toad", point, had been discovered. Of course not! DNA testing was not enough.
Like the Japanese who harpoon whales to eat, the pretense of further "scientific investigations" have to be made. Who would have been important enough to be buried here? Of course Mr Edmund Wigginbottom who also suffered from scoliosis and died at exactly the same time as Richard III and was wealthy enough to eat white bread and good fish and was connected to the Plantagenet Family of course!
We are told there is doubt and so more scientific research must be carried out possibly until the entire bone structure, (was this ever a man? Let alone a good King) is lost to other scientific foundations around the world? The genomes must be identified! 

Ergo - it is just as important that those bones in the Wren Urn should also be identified. One cannot insist upon one without the other. So much interest is concentrated upon one "unidentified" man and so what is the problem with identifying the Bones we know to belong to those poor princes? It must happen if the bones of Leicester are so scrutinized. If not, we must ask why? Are people and certain vested interests concerned that the bones when scrutinized will not have the DNA of those which belong to their sister Elizabeth of York? Only yards away from them at Westminster Abbey? Of course the Abbey is an Old Peculiar and so the present Queen is its patron. Of course this must and should happen but too many people don't want to rock the royal boat. Who cares about History and the Truth? We have a popular monarchy today! Yet surely, if we are sure, that the bones in the Wren Urn are those of the murdered Princes in the Tower, then why be nervous of the DNA outcome?  For over 500 years Richard III has been damned because all were quite certain that these were the bones of his murdered nephews.
 
And so to reputations. The reputation of Richard III who had all the promise of being one our finest kings has been totally demolished. Few care to read and learn about the people who did this or why. The Tudors have won. And yet the question must be, have they? Jeremy Potter the late and great Historian asked why there was a Richard III Society which had members world-wide? No other king has one which has members in Brazil, Australia, the USA, France, South Africa to name but a few countries.
Why are people from such disparate areas of the world even interested in Richard III? And many of them are actually intelligent and intellectuals. Far removed from the Alison Weir and Philippa Gregory school of "thought"? An oxymoron, surely. 

Two books have recently emerged about Anne Neville, one by Michael Hicks the so-called world leading authority on Richard III who has spent a life time studying a man he cannot stand, Richard III. (I think this odd in itself.) He begins by saying, next to nothing is known about this woman but I've been persuaded to do it. Why? If you don't believe you know about a subject then why bother? Amy Licence has written another, yet Michael Hicks holds sway.
 
Meanwhile questions are asked about the knowledge of others, named Ricardians. I know little about Philippa Langley but then does she? However the spritely and erudite Dr John Ashdown Hill, who addresses and researches in depth the questions Hicks will never ask, such as did Edward IV actually marry Lady Eleanor Butler, appear to be ignored. Philippa Langley was invited to the Leicester Press Conference when it was "believed" Richard III had been found in the car park - up for a BAFTA Award in May - and yet Dr Ashdown Hill was barred entry by the City Fathers.
He has recently been made a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, unlike Michael Hicks. Hurrah! He deserves it.
And so Richard III may have been found. I believe that he has been. He was unearthed under an "R" for reservation and on the anniversary of his believed burial and on the first day of the Dig. If a wrong must be righted it is here and now. This is all about History, which depends upon facts and logic and is not influenced by money, interests or the gullible guided to believe what they are meant to believe. The whole point of History is to allow us to think for ourselves on the evidence presented to us. We can do this! If our own History is not correct or
has been corrupted for others, then what is the point of History? History must be attempt to be accurate or there is no point to it. Apologies for being heavy.

You're not "being heavy" at all, Minette. Rather light I thought in fact, given that you have obviously subscribed so completely to the Langley/Ashdown-Hill camp. Indicative of this compunction on your part are phrases like "the monks wouldn't have dreamed of burying him anywhere but in the chancel" and "he was found under an R for Reservation in the car park".

There are as many reasons adduced from the known facts to imagine with equal conviction that he would have been interred anywhere but in a chancel, just as there are questions outstanding regarding just what was found under R for Reservation (there were more finds than just that one skeleton - important archaeological context - for which no documentation as yet exists either).

You conclude with "History [sic] must attempt to be accurate". If by this you mean archaeological analysis then I concur completely. We have no way of knowing just how accurate this piece of analysis has been. That has been my point all along and one I rather fancy has to be resolved first before any of the other controversies this charade has engendered can be discussed, let alone resolved.

Otherwise you and I and indeed everyone else enjoy little better status or regard in the eyes of those who currently sit on the data than the people you call "the gullible guided to believe what they are meant to believe", an unfortunate status shared also by Ashdown-Hill as much as anyone else writing about the affair.

Despite your little "dig" at Professor Michael Hicks for not being a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (how petty) his rather modest request for further clarification of the analytical process employed in this case actually places him firmly on your side, especially if your last few comments above are to be believed.

If however you, like the Langleys and Plantagenet Alliances of this world, have made your mind up already despite the paucity of fact and wish to carry the controversy over interment further while "half cocked" as they say in the movies then I respectfully submit that your posts on this matter are a mass of self-contradictions from which the only constant that can be extracted is an arbitrary agenda based on sentiment, not knowledge. You, like all the other players in the same boat, could be rescued from this predicament with a little cooperation from the personnel who for reasons as yet unstated have up to now withheld crucial information from review. If I were you and had adopted such an arbitrary agenda myself I would in fact be clamouring loudest for this cooperation - which is after all standard academic procedure in these matters - to be forthcoming.

Oh nordmann. Damned with faint praise.(Shakespeare again) I am not heavy but I may be delusional. Thanks for that. Have you ever pondered that Shakespeare may have had this effect upon you?
 
I should be most grateful if you could inform me of these "facts" that King Richard III's body was not buried in the chancel at Leicester. I've been researching this matter for some time and have yet to find such interesting indications that this was possible. And so I would really appreciate it if you could tell me what your sources are. I've never heard or read of this before. Not once.

I hated being a "vicar's daughter" and yet...It has given me a far better insight into the medieval mind and the importance of Christianity to the ordinary person in the c15th than you seem to be able to accept. I find that quite sad and it must be extremely limiting for you. However, I believe that I may have told you that I once worked for Leicester University's Archaeological Department illustrating Roman pots etc., places like this rarely change and I've insider knowledge of the institution. Have you?
I also remember my first encounter with Leicester University when I was twelve. It was during a dry year in Northamptonshire, A few years after what was believed to be a Hermitage was discovered across the Northampton road (A508) from Grafton and no one cared but the locals. And then, when I was there, a local farmer asked my father to come and look at his field, we went too. Quite extraordinary. Everything was parched and yet some places were more parched than others and one could see, quite clearly, the even more yellow lines of a structure. All I  can say is try to imagine a drawing of a building, an entrance, a main hall and rooms leading off it. You could even see the doorways which were not so yellow at ground level. These appeared to be the outlines of a large house.

Having spent my early years in mountainous Wales, I found it fascinating that from Stoke Park the flat lands rolled away towards Grafton so one could clearly see (from Stoke Park Pavilions) the give away three indentations for fish ponds. People especially clerics had to have fish ponds, there were so many non-meat days in a year apart from Fridays. And so we discovered what was known unofficially as the "hermitage". I think Gregory must have read something about it and made it her "love nest" for Ed IV and Liz Woodville, over-looking that there was a huge gap between Grafton which was set well back from the A508, the main Northampton road, let alone her "hermitage", also well back from the Northampton Road, a place for monastic prayers, not trysts.
         
But this house was really big! Fishbourne Palace had been discovered some years before and so dad contacted Leicester University to tell them about it and nothing happened and so we had fun! We all dug. A JCB turned up and farmers with shovels and large picks; my older sister and her digging crew were there  but then it sadly ended when a woman with a perm, a pompous voice wearing white polyester trousers appeared on the scene having descended from a helicopter. She told us all off, told us Leicester University would deal with it and that was that. Can't be bothered to tell you the rest except that Leicester University did not deal with it and there's no room to end the tale. 

Believe what you wish to nordmann, which you obviously do. My rather large "dig" at Michael Hicks was  due not to sentiment but disgust. I dare you to read a book by him which mentions the Portuguese  Connection or Portugal. It won't be there.  Ask yourself why the world's leading authority won't mention the proposed marriage between Richard III and Joanna the Blessed of Portugal? Or that between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, duke of Beja and later the king of Portugal? It sheds new light upon the "mysterious and unaccountable" Buck's Letter and there's another Portuguese Connection there with the Earl of Arundal! Michael Hicks, the world's leading authority on Richard III...Tailors his "facts" to suit his clothes. Truly sad. And you have been taught to believe him and people like him.    

I find it sad but believe what you choose nordmann.

Did you not read Nordmann's post Minette? Or did you simply misunderstand it?

Minette wrote:

I find it sad but believe what you choose nordmann.

To believe anything based on the skimpy data as yet released for review from the Leicester dig would be foolhardy indeed. But I notice this does not deter you ...

But then anyway, why let such a silly thing as fact (or its absence) get in the way of a good old Ricardian jihad? I despair.

Andrea posts over on Historum as Crystal Rainbow

"Crystal Rainbow" suits the lady.........I am firmly on the fence where Richard is concerned.  Perhaps I should have a "dekko" at Historum sometime.  This does not pertain to the Princes in the Tower but when I was at school when preparing for "O" level History we were given the impression that James II was something of a tyrant and tried to force the whole country to observe Catholicism; then at "A" level we were taught that he was more of a twerp (though the teacher did not use that word) and really wanted to have tolerance for everyone and remained a lifelong admirer of the Church of England. I never progressed to University level with History but if I had would yet another spin on James II have been given?

Fascinating as the mystery of Richard III remains, I personally feel that after 500 years we will never learn the whole story, though I could turn out to be wrong.  After all, the study of history progressed after the discovery of carbon dating and then of DNA.  There may be scientific discoveries in the future which will unlock the mystery of Richard III, though if there are such discoveries I think they will not be in my lifetime.

The latest claim for the Rendlesham forest lights and odd 'happening'  there some years back is that Time Travellers' had visited. For what possible reason goes unremarked. Perhaps they had an economy fare trip. R3 never did much to Suffolk, did he?

I think in retrospect I may have been a bit harsh on Crystal Rainbow. I have looked at some of her entries on Historum and I think she is sincere. My main beef is that she bashes Shakespeare. I mean, she could hardly expect him to write anything against the Tudors when a Tudor was on the throne in those times when there were all manner of horrible ways a person could be killed if he/she incurred the ire of the sovereign.

Quite right LiR. Can you imagine the Tudors (or any royal family of the past) tollerating the bashing that the current Royals receive from the press and eslewhere? Shakespeare would have been hung for treason if he had written anything but the party line.

It is quite silly to apply today's standards when seeking to understand history.

This is the crown that Ashford-Hill commissioned to sit on top of Dicky's (?) coffin.

Might this not be more appropriate?

Was he the original traffic calming hump?

Nothing like a good rumble. Historians thrive on them.   

One woman behaved in a very unseemly manner when the decision was announced that Leicester gets the bones. She was jumping up and down and clapping like a mad thing (it was on the BBC One O'Clock News a bit ago).

They had the Bishop of Leicester on and he was unbelievably smug.

Temperance wrote:

They had the Bishop of Leicester on and he was unbelievably smug.

So York get the hump 'cos Leicester get The Hump!

  

Meles meles wrote:

Temperance wrote:

They had the Bishop of Leicester on and he was unbelievably smug.

So York get the hump 'cos Leicester get The Hump!

  

Not a matter of having le hump at all, MM. Well, not much of a hump.

I just think bishops shouldn't gloat, not in public anyway. A true Christian would not have rejoiced so obviously in York's defeat, but rather would have offered the bones to us - gladly and with a joyful, generous heart.   

EDIT: Some of you might think I'm being serious, so have added a   .

Well be thankful they might only get the hump ... a right eccliasiastical miff would be something seriously different.

Temp wrote:

I just think bishops shouldn't gloat, not in public anyway. A true Christian would not have rejoiced so obviously in York's defeat, but rather would have offered the bones to us - gladly and with a joyful, generous heart. 

Quite ... but these days does a C of E bishop have to actually be a Christian? Quite a few have expressed doubts over the ressurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the infallibility of God ... yet they still remain firmly sat on their cathedra.

Frankly I thought that these days C of E bishops only had to believe in Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, steam-engines, and county cricket! Outside of that limited brief I thought their consciences were generally their own.

   

Can't resist just a tiny little nibble at the bait, MM  .  This is not the time nor the place, but I'm not sure anyone cares any more.

Meles meles wrote:

Quite ... but these days does a C of E bishop have to actually be a Christian? Quite a few have expressed doubts over the ressurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the infallibility of God ... yet they still remain firmly sat on their cathedra.

Ah, but what is a Christian, MM? Doubt is part of faith, you know: it's the one thing I'm absolutely sure of. But the fundamentalists - be they "Christians" or atheists -  will never, ever admit it. They think doubt is a sign of weakness. Perhaps it is. Who is to say? How do you define weakness?

MM wrote:

Frankly I thought that these days C of E bishops only had to believe in Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, steam-engines, and county cricket! Outside of that limited brief I thought their consciences were generally their own.

It does sometimes seem that way; but actually the Lords Spiritual can't seem to agree on anything these days, so it's no surprise the rest of us are totally confused. Stigma over dogma - nothing worse. But some will undoubtedly defect to Rome over the steam-engine row.

PS To be absolutely serious - watch Philomena and Rev. That "daft old Irish woman" (Judi Dench) and the poor doubting vicar played by the brilliant Tom Hollander (Hollander was Guy Burgess in the superb BBC The Cambridge Spies - excellent production too) represent - for me at least - what it's all about. But look, I've been tempted again and will be in trouble for straying off topic.

There are three mallard ducks (two males and one female) and six rabbits on my lawn this morning. My garden is turning into a wild life sanctuary - and it's driving me wild.

Just been reading this - don't know where else to post it.

"A secular Christian" - rather an interesting idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html

If Dawkins would also admit to being a secret Ricardian, I would consider him to be an extremely sound egg after all.




 

The criteria whereby a rational person can be described as a secular Christian are rooted in tradition and the happenstance of where one is born. The criteria whereby a Christian can be described as a religious rationalist are very difficult in themselves not to be described as contrived, to put it mildly. The first construct contains quite a lot of rationality in its comprehensibility - the second defies both concepts when one tries to arrive at a definitive form. The fundamental difference lies in the subjective willingness to believe things to be true that defy all evidence to their not being so. This definition of being religious is as unalterable by and impervious to semantic argument as it is itself intrinsically logical and therefore itself is a point of dichotomy between the religious and the rational mind, as any gainsaying will readily demonstrate.

Getting back to the thread's subject however, and in particular to the point raised by Minnie and others regarding forensic examination of the remains in Christopher Wren's ornate urn which are presently regarded by many as "the princes in the tower", it appears that the official responsibility for denial of access to these remains - for various reasons about which one can readily speculate with a good chance of being correct - lies with the C of E, not the crown. In 1995, the last time a formal request was entertained and then of course refused by this organisation's authorities, the then dean of Westminster the Very Rev [sic] Michael Mayne quite pithily expressed both the C of E's attitude towards logic in its deliberations as well as its subjective and self-serving judgmentalism in matters upon which it is not qualified to pronounce.

When asked what the church's reaction would be were forensic examination to prove these remains could not be those of the princes his response was:

"[So what do we do?] Keep them in the urn in the royal chapels, knowing they are bogus, or re-bury them elsewhere? And what would we have gained, other than to satisfy our curiosity in one area. It would not bring us any nearer the truth of the affair."

When asked what his view would be were forensic carbon dating etc to prove inconclusive he said;

"So far as the latter point is concerned – and it is this that fascinates and is the real interest – the other techniques would hardly do so either"  (other techniques here refers to examination of dental composition).

He then went on to say that these tests would have to be specific to within months when ascertaining the time of death "if Richard III is to be let off the hook".

You will note two things that are obvious here regarding this spokesman's way of thinking, and presumably that of the organisation for which he speaks. Firstly there is a subjective dismissal of forensic results before the tests are even done, and this itself used as a justification for why they therefore shouldn't be done. Secondly there is an overt statement of Richard's culpability in the affair, a recognition of the "guilty until proved innocent" nature of the centuries old official line in this case.

If ever one was to pick an example of how religion (in this case religion in its organised manifestation) eschews rationality with a self-regarding impunity that it itself has the power to enforce, and in doing so is led to pass judgement on individuals, events and even science itself unsupported by actual fact, then here is one. Not a prime example of course - the religious tend to excel themselves repeatedly in providing newer and crazier ones - but an apposite one in this case.

Nordmann wrote:

The criteria whereby a rational person can be described as a secular Christian are rooted in tradition and the happenstance of where one is born. The criteria whereby a Christian can be described as a religious rationalist are very difficult in themselves not to be described as contrived, to put it mildly. The first construct contains quite a lot of rationality in its comprehensibility - the second defies both concepts when one tries to arrive at a definitive form. The fundamental difference lies in the subjective willingness to believe things to be true that defy all evidence to their not being so. This definition of being religious is as unalterable by and impervious to semantic argument as it is itself intrinsically logical and therefore itself is a point of dichotomy between the religious and the rational mind, as any gainsaying will readily demonstrate.

Sic et non, nordmann.

Temperance wrote:

Quote :

PS To be absolutely serious - watch Philomena and Rev. That "daft old Irish woman" (Judi Dench) and the poor doubting vicar played by the brilliant Tom Hollander .......... - for me at least - what it's all about.......

So is THIS is what's all about? Hmm, Thank-you I think I'll stick with the Traction Engines and HMS Pinafore.....     




... and the smiley is again meant in jest. I'm not baiting ... well, perhaps just just a little.  

Minette Minor wrote:

...but then it sadly ended when a woman with a perm, a pompous voice wearing white polyester trousers appeared on the scene having descended from a helicopter.

Sounds like Princess Margaret.

I like the bit about the fish ponds, Minette.

Crossed posts.

No, no, no  MM - you don't understand. This is not what it's all about. Quite the opposite. It's a very good episode -  poor Rev tries to be nice to the Loathsome Darren (the trendy vicar) and lets his lot into Saint Savour's, complete with their ridiculous Jesus Smoothie Bar. The happy-clappy lot end up being horrible to Colin (Rev's rather difficult alcoholic/druggie friend/aka Peter). They try to get Colin banned. Rev throws the whole lot of them out and Saint Saviour's goes back to normal with a congregation of about six (including Colin and Bongo).

Best line is when Rev says of Loathsome Darren's communion service: "This isn't a sacrament - this is just a show" - and then tells Darren to - er - go away.

Yes Temp I know it's satire but therein lies some truth, neh?

I ... as a happily secular christian .... that is to say a cultural christian, but certainly not a religious christian ... I was generally quite happy going to church with my parents for the major C of E ceremononies throughout the year: Easter, Harvest Festival, Armistice Day, Christmas. I quite liked the ritual and history, and I certainly enjoyed playing in the local brass band.

And for me it was always about the community ... rather than anything to do with some big mysterious surpernatural imaginary being, who I never, even from the youngest age, ever seriously believed in. But like even Richard Dawkins, we all like to feel a that we are part of a community.

But when my parents'  parish church (founded some years before the Norman conquest) started doing the happy-clappy, jesus-loves-ME routine, even my parents stopped going, and, I think, for perhaps the first time in their lives, they seriously looked at their faith! In itself never a bad thing ... but I think the Church lost them at that point.

MM wrote:

For me it was always about the community ... rather than anything to do with some big mysterious being who I never, even from the youngest age, ever believed in or too seriously .

And in a way, that's what Rev is about. Certainly I saw it thus, the C of E setting something of a dramatic device, which could almost have been any organisation, which allowed a group of disparate, very human, fallible and rather isolated people to come together to form a community. It reminded me somewhat of The IT Crowd in that. I wonder what those who are not Christians - secular or otherwise - made of it? Would there have been enough there without the appreciation of the religious references to draw them in? To what extent was our enjoyment predicated on a knowing smile and a little mental back patting when recognising the symbolism?

Meles meles wrote:

Yes Temp I know it's satire but therein lies some truth, neh?

Of course, MM - that's the whole point.

But for the real truth, watch the final series, especially the last episode. It made me cry, but then I am just a daft old woman.

MM wrote:

But when my parents'  parish church (founded some years before the Norman conquest) started doing the happy-clappy, jesus-loves-ME, routine, even my parents stopped going!

They tried to take over our church, but I saw them off. When they started reading from their awful The Message version of the Bible I waved my King James Version at them defiantly and quoted Melvyn Bragg during coffee and biscuits. They hated me, especially the trendy Curate who's now moved on, thank goodness. His wife used to wave flags in the aisle during hymns and I asked her once if she could do the Nicene Creed in semaphore. She never spoke to me after that.

I sound very intolerant, don't I and I do try not to be. People can clap and shout "Jesus is Lord!" and wave flags all they want, but they should not try to make us all follow suit.  We do a BCP service on a Friday now and it's very well attended. Lovely old words, even if Cranmer does tend to address God as though he's Henry VIII.

But quick, somebody say something about DNA testing and Richard III and bones or something before the Boss gets back.

Is Michael Hicks a complete prat - or just misguided, Minette?

It is, as ferval has just said (crossed posts again) all about community - and tolerance - and good humour - and despair - and keeping going - and not being beastly-horrid to people, as Catigern would say.

PS I now feel guilty for being beastly-horrid to the flag-lady. But her husband was so rigid and certain about everything. He really did drive me mad. Another man I wanted to thump with my Bible, I'm afraid.  

Temperance wrote:

..... I asked her once if she could do the Nicene Creed in semaphore. She never spoke to me after that.

LOL   

My mother probably could have done that, at least that is if you'd caught her before the Alzhiemers's kicked in. I'm sure she'd always had the Nicene Creed off pat, and my grand-dad, her father, a member of the Royal Victoria Yacht Club and a mariner thoughout all his life, certainly trained all his children, sons and daughters alike, in semaphore .... and indeed morse. I was amazed to learn that my mother at just 14 years of age used to take a small boat out to sea completely alone, to go fishing ..... And I was surprised to learn years later that she still knew some morse code.

But also bear in mind that I am the youngest son, of the youngest daughter ... and so my maternal grandfather, of whom I refer above, was actually born as long ago as 1872. Things were very much different then, under the Old Queen.

I like the idea of "Onward, Christian soldiers!" in morse, MM. We could all tap dance it up the aisle and into the vestry.

Temperance wrote:

I like the idea of "Onward, Christian soldiers!" in morse, MM. We could all tap dance it up the aisle and into the vestry.

Or with a big enough thurible one could do a whole mass in smoke signals... with the responses by Aldis lamp!

Rather brings to mind.....

Deleted.

MM wrote:

Or with a big enough thurible one could do a whole mass in smoke signals... with the responses by Aldis lamp!

Sort of antiphonally, do you mean?

But what on earth is a thurible? Is it some sort of popish bauble, as John Knox would say?

Temperance wrote:

But what on earth is a thurible? Is it some sort of popish bauble, as John Knox would say?

Indeed. It's the incense burner or censer (I think - isn't it?), responsible for the smells and smoke part of the smells and bells. Its use in the Kirk would surely have incensed (!) John Knox and had spitting fire and brimstone into his beard.

Or as a more polite proddy visitor might have said, "Excuse me father, but your handbag's on fire".

Sorry but it's late and I'm bored.

Ok back on topic, we now have a dancing Richard III spine to add to the collection

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/30699


In addition to the sideways s-curve, the 3D model illuminates the spiral twist of the spine that you can only see when the spine is rotated. (You could see it even more clearly if the ribs were attached, but they haven’t 3D printed any ribs yet and probably won’t because many of them were broken when unearthed.) The model shows that the ribs on Richard’s back would have stuck out significantly on the right side, while they were sunken on the left. When he leaned forward, the prominent ribs on the right side of his back would have formed a hump. This would not have been visible, however, when he was clothed and in most any other position than leaning over, so all those pillows stuffed under costumes are way off.

Quote :

The physical disfigurement from Richard’s scoliosis was probably slight since he had a well balanced curve. His trunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs, and his right shoulder a little higher than the left. However, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have minimised the visual impact of this. A curve of 70—90° would not have caused impaired exercise tolerance from reduced lung capacity, and we identified no evidence that Richard would have walked with an overt limp, because the leg bones are symmetric and well formed.

He may or may not have had back pain. If his spinal curvature were magically straightened, he’d have been 5’8″ tall, about average for a man of the period. With the scoliosis he was two to three inches shorter.


All this, presupposes that it is indeed the skeleton of the late King, something that the 'evidence' has yet to fully prove. But that doesn't seem to be a consideration in this particular case, built almost entirely on hype.

Who will play Richard in the new Hollow Crown series?
It's elementary.
http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/benedict-cumberbatch-to-play-richard-iii-in-neal-streets-film-for-bbc-1201153203/

Thank you for those two links, ID and ferval - both really interesting.

I like Richard's dancing spine very much.

I note in ferval's link that our man is still being referred to as "this monstrous tyrant". ("By filming the 'Henry VI' plays as well as 'Richard III' we will allow viewers to fully appreciate how such a monstrous tyrant could find a way to power, bringing even more weight and depth to this iconic character.")

Cue Minette to have a rant about Shakespeare's determination to get one over on Christopher Marlowe rather than to offer a fair and balanced portrait of the last Plantagenet king. (Harold Bloom even suggests that Richard may been a parody of Marlowe himself - an interesting idea, given the intense rivalry between the two men. Hard to imagine Shakespeare envying anyone, but seems he did envy the super-cool, atheist (?) counterintelligence agent who swaggered around London as though he was untouchable.)

I see they are going to have a set of reproduction bones on display. I wonder if they'll have  "Assemble Your Own Richard III Skeleton" sets on sale in the new Visitors' Centre shop?

They could flog "Have Fun Doing DNA Testing" kits, too.

Temperance wrote:

I see they are going to have a set of reproduction bones on display. I wonder if they'll have  "Assemble Your Own Richard III Skeleton" sets on sale in the new Visitors' Centre shop?

Perhaps they will, Temp;

Deleted.

Triceratops wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27701384

I suppose the visitor's centre would at least provide some employment for people in Leicester.  Of course if it turned out later that the bones were not Richard's it could all be very embarrassing.

Just thinking that Lady in Retirement raises a good point. Post 326. I'll try not to wonder off. In the olden days when I did A'Level History we had a wonderful chance to do a 5,000 word essay on a subject of our choice. Always fascinated by the Stuarts I wanted to know what happened to them after 1688 and the so called "Glorious Revolution" of William the Orange (a Dutch invasion) and his King Lear like wife Mary II. It was great! Not what I did but the freedom. I learned to cross reference use "ibid" and all sorts of things, yes I was a strange child. But it was truly fascinating learning what happened to James III and Charles Edward III, the old and Young Pretenders. Very, very sad too.
What I came to realize was how important power politics is to History. Roman Catholics in the c17th could be compared to Communists in the c20th. "We'll all be murdered in our beds"! Titus Oates was the McArthy of his time. And fear breeds upon ignorance.

Charles II always believed younger brother James to be too impressionable. He could never understand why James married Anne Hyde, the bovine daughter of Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon) when she said she was pregnant. He'd have put her out to grass with a fat pension, affection and married someone more interesting. But James had to marry her out of mis-placed honour. And this is where it all falls apart.
James was a keen Anglo Protestant and so was Anne at first....But she became a full blown Roman Catholic and  insisted that James followed her example or else! And so James II did. The two daughters of this union, the two Protestant Princesses, later Mary II and  Queen Anne, were Protestants not due to their mother's influence but their father's, James II! Without Anne Hyde James II may well have continued to be a Protestant. This fact always slips through the net of History but then so does so much! I think that Lucy Worsley is one of the best things which has happened to televised History in years, yet how she hates the Stuarts! She would have been far more at home in the Court of Charles II than of the German Georges.
The only reason they were kings of England was due to their distant relationship to James I and being Protestants. Charles II actually believed in religious toleration, the Georges prospered due to the fact that they did not and never bothered to learn English. Hence the go-between Walpole a bi-lingual goffar.
And so of course to Richard III, Shakespeare wrote so many "History Plays" and having been forced to watch so many of them I can earnestly say that his, "Henry VIII"  - the only one to add, "this is a true and faithful account" is the most mind damagingly dull ever written. But then Shakespeare was writing for a comtemporary audience who lived in fear.
Shakespeare wrote many History Plays, King John, Richard II, parts of Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI, yet nothing of Henry VII? Why? Henry VII died in 1509 so were parts still kept silent? The Brave Richmond of Richard III must have had something to say or portray or entertain us with for the next 24 years of his reign surely!? "Perkin Warbeck Fights Again" or the "The Mystery of Who Was Lambert Simnell"? It is silence. Why?

We anyalize, discuss and interpret Shakespeare's "Richard III" until it hurts and as John Churchill first Duke of Malborough said, in the early c18th, "I learn my History from Shakespeare", so why don't we know that Henry IV was the usurspring and murdering son of one of the richest and most unpopular men who have ever lived, John of Gaunt; Henry V committed war crimes for which he would be tried at the Hague today (he didn't pay his army who fought for him at Agincourt until 3 years after the event when Parliament made him) and Henry VI was a pleasant but complete "basket case" who with his inherited catotonic scitzophrenia allowed his blood thirsty queen and her favorites, the Beauforts, bankrupt England. But these are just facts. The study of History is based upon facts unless of course we speak of Richard III and Tradition takes over.
I was oddly shocked the other evening to read on "Amazon" (don't buy there!But I know we do) how many people praised someone's latest "work" because what they knew about the Wars of the Roses was jumbled up. I would really like to know if others here feel the same, call it a vox pops. No names obviously! I know I did. But it's very straightforward really. The Lancastrians broke the royal line of succession with Henry Bolinbroke/Henry IV, the son of the richest man in Europe yet not the best claim!
I have always loved History but love the truth more, which is why I fell into the Richard III trap like others from all over the world. Do you see a King John Society anywhere? That man was bad! It was Richard III who brought in Habeus Corpus; had the Laws passed by his one and only Parliament passed in English for all to read; tried to stop Jury Tampering; took up Henry II's much used but lost travelling Justices and Juries; in short attempted to make the Magna Carta work, regardless of wealth or geographical position. Richard III was the King from the North and this is what later Chroniclers like the much used Chrowland et al could not cope with. King Richard had men who were not from the Home Counties in his government! And as we all know, so Chrowland says, the north is where all horrors come. Sorry too long!

I feel quite sure you will stamp out my meanderings Nordmann but upon what facts?
Will you do what Mr Hicks will insist upon doing and accuse those who disagree with you of being simply ridiculous? I obviously know nothing of you but find it very odd that an academic, like Hicks, a man with a brain, has spent his life studying a man he cannot stand. Why waste the time? Hitler, Stalin, Franco, even John of Gaunt I could understand, but Richard III, a man who did not shape the world? It's just rather..strange?
If we wish to and should, look at legitimacy issues we could discuss four such matters;(in depth later hopefully)
a) John Beaufort.
b) Edward of Lancaster
c) Edward of York (IV)
d) The Princes in the Tower.
I recorded a meeting Michael Hicks had with Sir(?) Tony Robinson (Baldric of Timewatch fame). Tony suddenly realised, that with the help of Michael Jones, it was extremely likely that Edward, Earl of March, was indeed the son of the Archer of Rouen. Having dismissed these "rumours" of illegitimacy for so many decades, that Edward later King Edward IV was not the son of Richard duke of York when taken by surprise, Hicks suddenly accepted that it was likely! I was awestruck that he changed his mind so suddelny.
If someone who has shouted, for so many years and for so long, that all facts prove that Edward IV was NOT illegitimate could alter his mind so quickly then, what next?
 
You will also be the first to say that the very idea that the secret marriage between Elizabeth Grey (nee Woodville) and Edward IV is possible but the secret marriage between Lady Eleanor Butler and Edward   Earl of March, is ridiculous. Why? Does your mind somehow defy all logic?
You ridicule Ashdown Hill but have you read any of his works? They are not for popular consumption; from Eleanor the Secret Queen to John Howard, Dear Cousyn, they are both "doctral" thesis. And yet may I suggest that never having read his works, you see him as a, "Ricardian", ergo, not to be considered of any importance.
When Jeremy Potter first wrote, "Good King Richard?" people like you, Hicks, Armstrong, and the popular Tudorist, Starkey (who had turned his back on Elton and Scracisbrook taught me!) didn't have to explain yourselves. Armstrong's version of Mancini's "History" were treated with reverence. Your problem has always been from Bucks (in the late c16th to the early early c17th) to today and Armstrong's translations. Some of us still do Latin and make sure our children do too, it's almost traditional. You now have to deal and cope with the information you cannot contain. 
    
You may still sneer at the "Ricardians" of this world, however "Traditonalists" are becoming eclipsed for the simple reason that they wish to have their pre-concieved ideas to be accepted as opposed to being correct or right.
I feel quite sure you will not agree Nordmann. Shakespeare has given you the glamour, the advertisements and the in-grained mind-set. For the first time since his death you have to deliver the facts, the rationale, the reasons, the legality, Church motivations, why Richard III was made king by Royal Council and by Parliament and the people of London.
Look to your facts Nordmann. Parliament blocked John of Gaunt from being Protector in 1377, the richest man in Euorpe. 100 years later they couldn't cope with a royal magistrate? I'm interested.

I think you're confusing me with someone else, Minette Minor. But you raise some interesting points which I will willingly address fully when time permits.

But just for the record - I have no need to "ridicule" Ashdown Hill, simply question his very publicly and topically stated certainties which, as you rightly point out, he does not feel the requirement to substantiate with fact placed by him in a topical and public domain. Why not? One does not enter an arena as a participant in a fray and then choose not to participate beyond declaring oneself an ultimate winner. My point re AH centered purely on his participation in the concerted campaign to have the recently unearthed remains presumed by all to be certainly those of RIII when in fact the forensically assembled evidence as well as the actual data concerning the context of the find has - even now - yet to be published. This assertion by him, to any lover of fact as you too claim to be, is weak when so woefully unsubstantiated as his presently is. If he's half the man you proclaim to him to be he'd already be out here with these facts which have swayed him so completely. I'd like to see them too. 

Stating I have learnt what I know historically about RIII from Willy Wobbleweapon made my night. Thanks for the laugh, MM. You never let me down!

I'll get back about the other stuff.